News What are Barack Obama's Books About?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Astronuc
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
Barack Obama's three books are available online, with "Dreams from My Father" offering an autobiographical narrative about identity and personal growth, while "The Audacity of Hope" discusses his political philosophy, particularly chapters on politics and opportunity. The conversation raises critical questions about Obama's long-term association with Reverend Wright, who was influential in his life but also controversial due to his affiliations and statements. This relationship leads to speculation about Obama's awareness of Wright's views and the implications for his judgment. The discussion critiques the media's handling of Obama's connections, suggesting a double standard compared to scrutiny faced by white politicians with similar ties. Participants express a desire for a more thorough examination of Obama's past affiliations and a call for support now that he has been elected. The dialogue reflects broader themes of race, media bias, and the expectations placed on political leaders, emphasizing the need for accountability while also advocating for a chance to evaluate Obama's presidency as it unfolds.
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
22,340
Reaction score
7,138
Barack Obama's three books are online.

Dreams from my Father is an autobiography, a narrative about coming of age, struggle with identity, and an insight into parts of the world one might not find in one's own life.


Audacity of Hope is a discussion of Obama's politicial philisophy. Chapter 4, Politics, and Chapter 5, Opportunity, are worth reading. Whether or not one voted for Obama, try to read the book with an open and objective mind.

http://www.randomhouse.com/crown/barackobama/

I haven't read the third, Change We Can Believe In, yet so I can't comment.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The big question I have regarding Senator Obama is the issue of Reverand Wright, because Reverand Wright was like a father to him (according to him), married him to his wife, baptized his children, and he attended the church for twenty years. But Reverand Wright also gave Louis Farrakhan, the racist leader of the Nation of Islam, a lifetime achievement award and I believe traveled with him to meet dictator Quaddafi back in 1984.

Which leads me to three conclusions about the Senator:
1) Either he was incredibly ignorant about all this, which would show bad judgement
2) He knew of Wright's views but didn't care and allied with him for politicial reasons
3) He agreed with those views

I do not think it was number one, which means it would probably be number two or three, which makes me uncomfortable. I think the mainstream media was highly hypocritical in letting Senator Obama slide on this issue the way they did.

If it had been a white politician whose minister of twenty years whom he called a father figure had given a big award to some KKK member or Nazi sympathizer, I think it would have created a tremendous amount of hard media scrutiny.
 
It's a little late to worry about Obama's affiliations or experience or even campaign promises.

He was elected quite decisively...now it's time to support him.

As for the media...they got what they wanted...AND Bush is gone...no more excuses.

Now it's time for them to start doing their jobs again and take a VERY hard look at what went on in Congress for the past few years leading up to the housing collapse, the bailout mismanagement/abuses and the real story about derivatives.
 
WheelsRCool said:
Which leads me to three conclusions about the Senator:
1) Either he was incredibly ignorant about all this, which would show bad judgement
2) He knew of Wright's views but didn't care and allied with him for politicial reasons
3) He agreed with those views

Dreams from my Father mentions a bit about Wright who was a major figure in the African-American community in Chicago, and Trinity United Church of Christ was a prominent force in the African-American community in Chicago. It is important to realize that the minister is not the church, but rather the church is the congregation/members.

Obama met Wright in the course of his work as a community organizer, when Obama had no affiliation with any Church. Perhaps Obama joined Trinity as his political career took off.

Obama was apparently baptized at Trinity UCC in 1988 and was a member until 2008. I have no idea how often he attended, which is something that doesn't seem to be a matter of record.

Here is Obama's words on his Spiritual Journey
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1546579,00.html

From what I've read, Barack Obama is very thoughtful, and concerned about how well a government serves it citizens. That's not to say that he's always necessarily right.

Obama's words seem to reflect positively in contrast to Wright's harsh rhetoric.
 
WheelsRCool said:
The big question I have regarding Senator Obama is the issue of Reverand Wright, because Reverand Wright was like a father to him (according to him), married him to his wife, baptized his children, and he attended the church for twenty years. But Reverand Wright also gave Louis Farrakhan, the racist leader of the Nation of Islam, a lifetime achievement award and I believe traveled with him to meet dictator Quaddafi back in 1984.

Which leads me to three conclusions about the Senator:
1) Either he was incredibly ignorant about all this, which would show bad judgement
2) He knew of Wright's views but didn't care and allied with him for politicial reasons
3) He agreed with those views

I do not think it was number one, which means it would probably be number two or three, which makes me uncomfortable. I think the mainstream media was highly hypocritical in letting Senator Obama slide on this issue the way they did.

If it had been a white politician whose minister of twenty years whom he called a father figure had given a big award to some KKK member or Nazi sympathizer, I think it would have created a tremendous amount of hard media scrutiny.

My parents are in their seventies and I still gain new insights into their personalities every year. So, point 1). is a false conclusion. Knowing someone, even for many years, does not suggest that you know everything about their views or deepest held biases. Also, as people age, they change. Among your options, you didn't include: Wright is getting a bit whacky in his old age; Wright has grown less idealist and more bitter over the years, both of which seem likely to me. Your are also ignoring the history of black activism. Wright represents the past - the days when there were severe injustices againt blacks.

How did the Jews feel about the Nazis?

Finally, are you suggesting that any expression of white racism is synonomous with being a KKK sympathizer, or a Nazi? There is no distinction between a personal bias, and the desire for lynchings and gassings?
 
Last edited:
WheelsRCool said:
The big question I have regarding Senator Obama is the issue of Reverand Wright, because Reverand Wright was like a father to him (according to him), married him to his wife, baptized his children, and he attended the church for twenty years. But Reverand Wright also gave Louis Farrakhan, the racist leader of the Nation of Islam, a lifetime achievement award and I believe traveled with him to meet dictator Quaddafi back in 1984.

Which leads me to three conclusions about the Senator:
1) Either he was incredibly ignorant about all this, which would show bad judgement
2) He knew of Wright's views but didn't care and allied with him for politicial reasons
3) He agreed with those views

I do not think it was number one, which means it would probably be number two or three, which makes me uncomfortable. I think the mainstream media was highly hypocritical in letting Senator Obama slide on this issue the way they did.

If it had been a white politician whose minister of twenty years whom he called a father figure had given a big award to some KKK member or Nazi sympathizer, I think it would have created a tremendous amount of hard media scrutiny.

Yes I absolutely agree with you. Every politician should be scrutinize in the same manner. For this election, that was not the case. Obama supporters hung effigy of Palin: silly prank. College kids hang effigy of Obama: Hate crime. if a white politician had a mentor who was a white supramacist, He would be under sever scrutiny. I bet if obama racially identify himself as a white person rather than a multiracial person, he would be labeled a sell-out and racist. Obama's church's even says that they are not unshamed that they have an almost all black congregation Can you imagine if Mccain's church website stated that they were unashame to have an all white congregation? The media would have a field day with this story (as they rightly should )
 
WheelsRCool said:
The big question I have regarding Senator Obama is the issue of Reverand Wright, because Reverand Wright was like a father to him (according to him), married him to his wife, baptized his children, and he attended the church for twenty years. But Reverand Wright also gave Louis Farrakhan, the racist leader of the Nation of Islam, a lifetime achievement award and I believe traveled with him to meet dictator Quaddafi back in 1984.

Which leads me to three conclusions about the Senator:
1) Either he was incredibly ignorant about all this, which would show bad judgement
2) He knew of Wright's views but didn't care and allied with him for politicial reasons
3) He agreed with those views

I do not think it was number one, which means it would probably be number two or three, which makes me uncomfortable. I think the mainstream media was highly hypocritical in letting Senator Obama slide on this issue the way they did.

If it had been a white politician whose minister of twenty years whom he called a father figure had given a big award to some KKK member or Nazi sympathizer, I think it would have created a tremendous amount of hard media scrutiny.

One of my grandfathers spews racist rhetoric all the time. My grandparents on the other side are hard core christians who think anyone who has not accepted jesus as their savior is going to hell. They also feel sorry for black people and mexicans because they think they are obviously not as smart and industrious as others. My own parents are semi-racist even. These are my own family. The people whom I grew up around and shaped who I am and how I think. What do you think that says about me?
 
You have lively holiday dinner conversations? (SORRY...I couldn't resist)

Obviously you are a free thinking person who makes his own decisions and forms his own opinions.

Unfortunately, politicians are often beholden to the people who help them achieve their goals...whether they agree 100% or not.
 
TheStatutoryApe said:
One of my grandfathers spews racist rhetoric all the time. My grandparents on the other side are hard core christians who think anyone who has not accepted jesus as their savior is going to hell. They also feel sorry for black people and mexicans because they think they are obviously not as smart and industrious as others. My own parents are semi-racist even. These are my own family. The people whom I grew up around and shaped who I am and how I think. What do you think that says about me?

You cannot changed the attitudes and beliefs your families members might have about black people. Most sane people will understand that you did not have anything to do with having racists family member However, having family members that espoused racism and choosing to go to a church that espousing a slightly racist philosophy are entirely two different things. The philosophy that Trinity churh seems to carry is black liberation theology created by James Cone, where whites are strictly seen as oppressors and minorities are strictly seen as victims.
Cone defines it as "complete emancipation of black people from white oppression by whatever means black people deem necessary." For Cone, the deeply racist structure of American society leaves blacks with no alternative but radical transformation or social withdrawal. So-called Christianity, as commonly practiced in the United States, is actually the racist Antichrist. "Theologically," Cone affirms, "Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man 'the devil.'" The false Christianity of the white-devil oppressor must be replaced by an authentic Christianity fully identified with the poor and oppressed.
[14]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hal_Cone
 
Last edited:
  • #10
From what I've read, Barack Obama is very thoughtful, and concerned about how well a government serves it citizens. That's not to say that he's always necessarily right.

Obama's words seem to reflect positively in contrast to Wright's harsh rhetoric.

My father is half African-American (just like Senator Obama), so he is essentially considered a black man; my mom is half Irish, half German, so I came out as mostly a white guy (the African part shows up more in my sister, who has a Latino look to her). I have been raised white, but my father was raised black, and asking him about Senator Obama, he said that it's just how some of those pastors are, spewing rhetoric like that, perhaps from old age or who knows what, it doesn't mean that Senator Obama agreed with it or not, in his view. He voted for McCain, but he isn't "anti-Obama."

Not sure what I think, as I know when I was once watching Larry the Cable Guy (the comedian) and he pulled out a guitar with the Confederate flag, to which then the opposite happened, my father got highly offended and walked out of the room; me, I was okay with it because I didn't think Larry meant it as being racist, I figured it was just a "Southern pride" type of thing.

One thing regarding Senator Obama's books, in them I doubt he would have been wise to write the kind of rhetoric that Reverand Wright spews, even if that is what he felt; wouldn't be the ideal way to begin a political career!

But I wish Senator Obama would have explained his relationships and alliances better.

My parents are in their seventies and I still gain new insights into their personalities every year. So, point 1). is a false conclusion. Knowing someone, even for many years, does not suggest that you know everything about their views or deepest held biases.

Well it could be a false conclusion then. But also knowing people for many years usually means you get to know them pretty well.

Also, as people age, they change. Among your options, you didn't include: Wright is getting a bit whacky in his old age; Wright has grown less idealist and more bitter over the years, both of which seem likely to me.

Perhaps.

Your are also ignoring the history of black activism. Wright represents the past - the days when there were severe injustices againt blacks.

Yes; he needs to realize these are modern times then.

Finally, are you suggesting that any expression of white racism is synonomous with being a KKK sympathizer, or a Nazi? There is no distinction between a personal bias, and the desire for lynchings and gassings?

No, I am saying that just as Reverand Wright gave Farrakhan, a noted racist, an award, if a white political candidate had such a minister or pastor who gave some KKK or Nazi or white racist an award, and the politician had a long relationship with that pastor/minister, don't you think the media would have grilled them?

One of my grandfathers spews racist rhetoric all the time. My grandparents on the other side are hard core christians who think anyone who has not accepted jesus as their savior is going to hell. They also feel sorry for black people and mexicans because they think they are obviously not as smart and industrious as others. My own parents are semi-racist even. These are my own family. The people whom I grew up around and shaped who I am and how I think. What do you think that says about me?

Well if they're family you grew up around, that's a little different. If they are people you go and meet as an adult and start a twenty year relationship with, who knows.

On my dad's side of the family, which is coal black (he had a black mother, and white father, but his siblings had the same mother, but a black father) his ex-wife before my mom was a member of the NAACP.

On my mom's side, some parts of the family are racist unfortunately, and since she is part Germany, part of the family even fought on the German side during WWII! (this part is not the racist portion though).

Families can be crazy!

The other thing about Senator Obama that got me is when he was speaking to that group of multimilionaires and billionaires in San Francisco and talked about "bitter Americans who cling to their guns and religion." It just seemed very elitist-sounding, as if he had a "We big city elites must do our best to help those poor, miserable, destitute middle Americans who cling to things like guns and religion (because only people with problems find joy out of guns) and who are like sheep and need the maternal-like guidance of us, the elites."

But hopefully Obama is a good man and will be a good president.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #11
As far as Obama being an elitist, while that might be true, his mantra was always "change." It may just be a stereotype, but those "people who cling to guns and religion" are oftentimes stuck in their ways, for better or worse. I don't think Obama meant what he said from a condescending viewpoint, just as another tie-in to his overall campaign message.
 
  • #12
He certainly doesn't seem "Elitist" in these photos...unless you mean "Celebrity"? Actually, the golfing photos look a lot like Tiger Woods.

http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/President-elect-Barack-Obama/ss/events/pl/020807obama#photoViewer=/081227/480/d1f9988871c3480091a3cb7a5c6892ec

Don't judge a book by it's cover...whether that be vacation photos or a single sound bite.

Remember "Read MY Lips" (Bush)...this is the standard we need to apply to Obama moving forward.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #13
pentazoid said:
Obama's church's even says that they are not unshamed that they have an almost all black congregation Can you imagine if Mccain's church website stated that they were unashame to have an all white congregation? The media would have a field day with this story (as they rightly should )
You don't see a difference between "almost all" and 'all"? Essentially, according to you, Obama's church is saying that they are proud they have white members- a mixed race congregation. I see nothing wrong with that.
 
  • #14
I came from a family and a culture where racial and minority epithets were not uncommonly used at the dinner table or casual conversation. Yet I saw many acts of kindness and fair treatment of all regardless that belied any thought that my parents harbored actual enmity, as opposed to cultural insensitivity, toward others simply because of differences.

While I came to disagree with my parent's expression of things, as Obama said in his Philadelphia speech about Reverend Wright when he would no more disavow Wright than he would his own family, neither did I seek to change my family nor certainly thought to disavow them. They came from a world that had defined them and their view of the world. They knew I disagreed, but they surely knew that I loved them as they loved me, flaws and all.

The presumption then that Obama acts or believes in any way in Wright's extreme rhetorical expressions is surely as false, as presuming that he doesn't have the capacity to respect someone with whom he doesn't agree. His selection of Rick Warren speaks to his ability to associate without adopting. Those that continue to flagellate Obama with Wright should as surely remember then that he associates with Warren too.

His speech on Wright and Race.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1959950&postcount=2
 
  • #15
I went to the funeral service for an old friend yesterday.

The priest asked everyone to read along as he cited the "Creed"...There were 2 passages I wasn't inclined to read aloud...I didn't leave...I skipped over them and continued to participate.

Again, it's a little late to second guess Obama's choice of reverend any more than critiquing the Chicago political machine.

Obama did what he needed to do to be elected...he won decisively...now he will be OUR President for the next 4 years.

He's our President, support him, hold him to his words and critique his actions. If you like the job he does over the next 4 years...re-elect him...if not (?)...maybe a better choice will come along.
 
  • #16
Obama's political philosophy: The unions put you into office, return the favor.
 
  • #17
DrClapeyron said:
Obama's political philosophy: The unions put you into office, return the favor.
Please provide a link to the source you have for this.
 
  • #18
DrClapeyron said:
Obama's political philosophy: The unions put you into office, return the favor.
Unions simply don't have the power to put anyone into office these days. They have lost an enormous number of members and a lot of power over the last 50 years.

If you are saying unions favor Democrats and Democrats tend to help unions, yes, that's true. As it should be.
 
  • #19
Did Obama say no to the money handed to him by the AFL-CIO? No. The first thing Obama will do when he enters office is to make sure that the 'bail out' plan is restructured in favor of the unions - UAW in particular. The UAW was not going to allow congress to simply let the markets 'fix themselves', they would rather not work. The unions won't work without their benefits and that was the promise Obama made.

Look at it this way: they had the ability to bankrupt the Big Three with their healthcare and retirement benefits and gave Obama about $50 million. Really, no power?
 
  • #20
DrClapeyron said:
Did Obama say no to the money handed to him by the AFL-CIO? No. The first thing Obama will do when he enters office is to make sure that the 'bail out' plan is restructured in favor of the unions - UAW in particular. The UAW was not going to allow congress to simply let the markets 'fix themselves', they would rather not work. The unions won't work without their benefits and that was the promise Obama made.

Look at it this way: they had the ability to bankrupt the Big Three with their healthcare and retirement benefits and gave Obama about $50 million. Really, no power?

I think you grossly misread Obama if you think that he is a disciple of something for nothing. I don't think his union IOUs are so compelling in any event.

Is he for redistribution of economic opportunity? I'd suspect so. But he's also interested in improving infrastructure for very powerful reasons - support increased economic growth. Better roads. Develop a more robust power grid that can be used as a conduit for new energy opportunities. I also hear him talking about increasing the number of hours of school. Imagine a more educated population.

The mood of the country is such that I doubt there will be many opportunities to sit around and get paid. Getting everyone involved and working on something actually useful may just be a powerful tonic in fueling a recovery and leading the world in greening our use of resources.
 
  • #21
Give Obama a chance already...he isn't even sworn in yet. There are many things in place and moving forward with a momentum that will assist him.

The first thing he plans to do is find a way to create a lot of new jobs...whether or not they're union jobs doesn't really matter at this time. Smaller employers trying to attract top talent often provide very good benefits to retain employees. Improved SBA programs will undoubtedly be part of his overall strategy.

The need for infrastructure repair, improvement and expansion will NEVER end and some new jobs can be created accordingly. Improvements to the power grid are inevitable and alternative energy development is well under way.

The Big 3 have been restructuring for a long time...but, the credit freeze was something they couldn't predict or prevent. The reality is that until average people can buy cars again...the Big 3 will have difficulty paying their obligations. This is the biggest problem facing the auto industry...finding a way to sell new cars.

Also, one of the problems with building a better car is they tend to last longer...lot's of good used vehicles on the (it's a buyers) market right now.
 
  • #22
This guy is rather biased, toward China, but does a decent job at getting the message across: massive pension fund failure=bad times for unions.

http://henryckliu.com/page173.html


Henry C.K. Liu said:
Now in October 2008, while the US government is busy bailing out wayward banks, public pension funds operated by states and municipalities are facing their worst year of loss in history, exacerbating cumulative funding shortfalls of past decades of credit bubble and putting pressure on distressed state governments to shore them up to avoid pending default.

...

California’s Calpers, the biggest public pension fund in the US, in the week ending October 24 reported a loss of 20% of its asset value, or more than $40 billion, in the quarter between July 1 and October 20, 2008.

State and local pension funds comprise a patchwork of 2,700 funds that manage $1.4 trillion on behalf of 21 million public employees, including teachers, firefighters, policemen and other municipal workers.

When Obama is inagurated I will start a new thread posting the odds for when and how much Obama gives to the unions. ;)
 
  • #23
Again, we need to give Obama a chance...change of ANY type will take time.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090111/pl_politico/17317
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #24
DrClapeyron said:
This guy is rather biased, toward China, but does a decent job at getting the message across: massive pension fund failure=bad times for unions.

http://henryckliu.com/page173.html
First, non-mainstream sources aren't allowed as references.

Just what are you claiming that Obama is going to give to Unions? Which unions? What is he going to give that would be bad? What would he have to gain?

You seem to have a knowledge of some conspiracy that eludes the rest of the world.
 
  • #25
DrClapeyron said:
Did Obama say no to the money handed to him by the AFL-CIO? No. The first thing Obama will do when he enters office is to make sure that the 'bail out' plan is restructured in favor of the unions - UAW in particular. The UAW was not going to allow congress to simply let the markets 'fix themselves', they would rather not work. The unions won't work without their benefits and that was the promise Obama made.

Look at it this way: they had the ability to bankrupt the Big Three with their healthcare and retirement benefits and gave Obama about $50 million. Really, no power?

"You buy into my agenda, I don't buy into your agenda." - Ronald Reagan
 
  • #26
DrClapeyron said:
Obama's political philosophy: The unions put you into office, return the favor.
If you think think that the unions have enough clout left to put a black man in office as president against the will of the populace, you have a very skewed outlook on the US public. Sorry, but that thinking is sick.

For some perspective: My nephew is white (as am I), and while stationed in San Diego (Lifer Navy, that dude!) he fell in love with a wonderful black lady with a child from a previous marriage. He has gotten promoted to Chief Warrant Officer, and they'll be moving to Hawaii later this year. I will miss them all.
 
Last edited:
  • #27
Evo said:
First, non-mainstream sources aren't allowed as references.

Just what are you claiming that Obama is going to give to Unions? Which unions? What is he going to give that would be bad? What would he have to gain?

You seem to have a knowledge of some conspiracy that eludes the rest of the world.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/09/us/politics/09labor.html?ref=washington

Steven Greenhouse said:
WASHINGTON — After making millions of phone calls and knocking on millions of doors to elect Barack Obama, the nation’s labor unions have begun a new campaign: to get the new president and Congress to pass legislation that would make it easier for workers to unionize.

Unions, delighted that they will have a friend in the White House after eight years of fighting President Bush, also plan to push for universal health coverage and a huge stimulus program to create jobs and counter the downturn.

http://www.financialweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080825/REG/860754/1036

Neil Roland said:
The AFL-CIO’s highest priority is the 1.3 million or so undecided union voters in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan, said deputy political director Michael Podhorzer. These are closely contested, populous states with large numbers of union members who could be pivotal to the outcome.

The labor group plans to spend as much as $18 million to reach potential swing voters in these three states with TV ads, flyers, phone calls, e-mails, mailings and one-on-one visits, Mr. Podhorzer said.

I would say that 10 million members and $20 million wields pretty significant clout. Pension funds give the unions significantly more clout. In fact the pension funds of the United States federal government (social security, medicare, medicaid) are the largest in the world and make Mark Madoff look like a mouse fart. I suspect Japanese prime minister Taro Aso was not far off in declaring the elderly a tax burden. I don't mind paying social security for the moment but the obligation is mind boggling.

Ida May Fuller (September 6, 1874 – January 1975) was the first American citizen to receive a monthly benefit Social Security check. She received the check, amounting to $22.54, on January 31, 1940.

Fuller was born on a farm outside Ludlow, Vermont. She spent most of her life in Ludlow, working as a legal secretary, but lived with her niece in Brattleboro, Vermont during her last eight years. She retired in 1939, having paid just three years of payroll taxes. She received monthly Social Security checks until her death in 1975 at age 100. By the time of her death, Fuller had collected $22,888.92 from Social Security monthly benefits, compared to her contributions of $24.75 to the system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ida_May_Fuller

Obama's solution? Increase defense spending.
 
  • #28
I didn't care much for Obama the candidate and I didn't vote for him...but he won and now he WILL BE my President for the next 4 years. I hope he's successful.

With that said...GIVE HIM A CHANCE...quit second guessing what he might do or what anyone MIGHT pressure him to do.

Why wouldn't ANY group that supported him want his ear? Voters picked him because they believe he's above all of the influence.

Let's wait until he actually takes office, then see what he does. At this point, Obama is like the #1 draft pick...lot's of well wishers, lot's of hopeful fans/supporters, he's going through pre-season training/picking players/learning plays...but he hasn't played a single down.

Kickoff is in a week...
 
  • #29
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gLy-7Qsm2KeE15rL6Is9p56BcWhwD95M3RKO0
Apparently one of his first actions as president may well be to issue an executive order for the closing of Guantanamo.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #30
Obama tells daughters he ran for president for them, all children
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090115/ts_alt_afp/uspoliticsobamachildren
WASHINGTON (AFP) – In an open letter to his young daughters, US president-elect Barack Obama said Thursday that he entered the race for the White House "because of what I want for you and for every child in this nation."

"When I was a young man, I thought life was all about me -- about how I'd make my way in the world, become successful, and get the things I want. But then the two of you came into my world," Obama said in the letter published in Parade magazine, a weekend newspaper color supplement.

"I realized that my own life wouldn't count for much unless I was able to ensure that you had every opportunity for happiness and fulfilment in yours. In the end, girls, that's why I ran for President: because of what I want for you and for every child in this nation," wrote the soon-to-be Dad-in-chief.

Obama's wish-list for children includes challenging and inspirational schools; equal opportunity to go to university, regardless of their family's financial standing; and well-paid jobs with benefits such as health care and a pension plan that will allow them to "retire with dignity."

The 47-year-old father of Malia, 10, and Sasha, 7, said he wants to "push the boundaries" of discovery to encourage the development of new technology and inventions that improve lives and protect the environment.

And he spoke of his vision of a United States that has reached "beyond the divides of race and region, gender and religion that keep us from seeing the best in each other."

He would strive to send young Americans to war "only for a very good reason", trying first to settle differences with other nations peacefully.

. . .
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/15/obama-letter-children-malia-sasha
http://www.parade.com/export/sites/default/news/2009/01/barack-obama-letter-to-my-daughters.html


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090115/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_s_farewell
Bush called the inauguration of Obama, the first black president, a "moment of hope and pride" for America.

"Standing on the steps of the Capitol will be a man whose story reflects the enduring promise of our land," he said in wishing the best to Obama, incoming first lady Michelle Obama, and their two daughters.
One of the few things Bush got right!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #31
Why would Obama lead with this...shouldn't he wait a week or two?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/15/obama-end-militarys-dont-ask-dont-tell-policy/

Clinton took harsh criticism when he made this his first priority...undoing it as first priority (given the economy) will also be criticized and questioned.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #32
WhoWee said:
Why would Obama lead with this...shouldn't he wait a week or two?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/15/obama-end-militarys-dont-ask-dont-tell-policy/

Clinton took harsh criticism when he made this his first priority...undoing it as first priority (given the economy) will also be criticized and questioned.
Undoing Don't Ask, Don't Tell will not cost any money, and in fact should help the military retain skilled personnel, which should save money. Why should the military lose analysts, translators, experienced combat troops, etc, just because they happen to be gay?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #33
I'm not questioning WHY DO IT...I'm questioning the TIMING of it...based on the heat Clinton took.
 
  • #34
WhoWee said:
I'm not questioning WHY DO IT...I'm questioning the TIMING of it...based on the heat Clinton took.
Because it shows a clear break with past policy that was damaging to the military, and it can be done with the stroke of a pen, with no haggling with Congress, etc. Why wait?
 
  • #36
WhoWee said:
Why would Obama lead with this...shouldn't he wait a week or two?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/15/obama-end-militarys-dont-ask-dont-tell-policy/
Who said he wishes to "lead" with it? Nobody in the link you provided, as far as I can tell.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #37
Interesting juxtaposition of MLK Day and Obama's inauguration. As president, Obama will have (obviously) command to affect the course of the US economy and international diplomacy:

America: What in the world does it want to be?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090118/ap_on_re_us/measure_of_a_nation_the_world_at_home

NEW YORK – George Washington, first president, said this: "It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world."

Eldridge Cleaver, civil rights leader, said this: "Americans think of themselves collectively as a huge rescue squad on 24-hour call."

Toby Keith, populist country singer, said this: "This big dog will fight when you rattle his cage — and you'll be sorry that you messed with the U.S. of A."

Now: Place those three divergent sentiments in a large bowl. Whip vigorously until blended. There you'll have, in one curious, often contradictory recipe, the world-changing, world-shaking world view of the quixotic species known as the American people.

When 21st-century Americans contemplate their place on the planet, they confront a complex history of isolationism and engagement, a deep instinct to live and let live that coexists with an equally fervent desire to be a robust beacon of freedom — sometimes by any means necessary.

. . . .

MLK's dream also included economic justice
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090118/ap_on_re_us/mlk_economic_equality

NEW YORK – The focus of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964 wasn't what had been accomplished — but rather his view of what still needed to be done.

More than four decades later, King scholars say he would take the same approach at this historic moment — the inauguration of the first black president at a time when the nation is facing its greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression.

The crisis could widen the already large financial gaps between whites and blacks and make it more difficult to attain King's dream of economic equality in America.

"I believe that Dr. King would caution us not to rest on the election of a black president and say our work here is done," said Kendra King, associate professor of politics at Oglethorpe University in Atlanta.

Although King is best known for his civil rights work, he was a staunch advocate for economic justice. In the months before he was killed, he had been working on the Poor People's Campaign and calling for an economic bill of rights. When he was assassinated in 1968, he was in Memphis supporting a sanitation workers' strike.

"Economic empowerment and justice was always a part of Dr. King's purpose," professor King said. "Civil rights without economic parity is still imprisonment."

. . . .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #38
Obama has gotten himself elected...that is a fact.

There will be a BIG celebration...rightfully so...big social breakthrough.

The campaign is over...Obama has the "football"...and the economy...and our trust.

I wish him well...I hope he's up to the task.
 
  • #39
here's a cut paste of something I posted elsewhere...

I picked up Obama's book The Audacity of Hope yesterday and thought I would share my impression of it so far.

I have to admit that as much as I liked Obama and hoped he would win I didnt know a whole lot about him except what I read in articles and heard from my mostly conservative local radio talk show hosts. As I read this book I was fairly suprised at the degree to which I agree with him, at least in principle if not in every opinion. I'm not used to the idea of liking and agreeing with a politician so much.

The book is written in a conversational manner and is rather accessable. Obama points out himself that the book is not meant to reveal his manifesto or lay out some plan of action but only to highlight what he sees as the major problems in American politics today through the lens of his own experience. The issue that he seems to focus on most is the extreme partisan infighting.

Obama admits to being possessed of a bias in political philosophy but proceeds from there to show a rather balanced perception of his colleagues and his constituents. He says that although he may not agree with some one philosophically that does not mean they don't have good points to make, good ideas to share, and legitimate concerns about the effects of government on their freedoms and way of life. He says that he would love to see a day again when republicans and democrats have a mutual respect and aim to work together instead of seeking to undermine one another.

Perhaps its just a lot of rhetoric but I personally found it to be rather sincere. I think its quite a good book to read for anyone who wants to know more about how our new president thinks and I doubt many people will find they can't agree with him at least on the principles of his political philosophy.
 
  • #40
DrClapeyron said:
Obama's political philosophy: The unions put you into office, return the favor.
Obama seems to be having a little trouble keeping track of what his political philosophy is supposed to be.
Union leaders were taken aback this month when Obama, during television appearances discussing the stimulus legislation, spoke skeptically of "Buy American" provisions in the bill giving U.S. makers of steel and other materials an advantage in bidding for contracts.

Obama told Fox News that the U.S. "can't send a protectionist message," and he cautioned on ABC News that the requirements could be a "potential source of trade wars that we can't afford at a time when trade is sinking all across the globe."

That language mirrored the criticisms that business groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce had used in arguing against "Buy American" rules.

Business groups were thrilled at Obama's words.

"That was an extremely important moment," said John Murphy, vice president for international affairs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, one of the biggest business associations. "The business community is very pleased that the White House stepped in and showed leadership on this issue."

"Buy American" rules remain in the stimulus bill that the president is scheduled to sign Tuesday, but labor advocates were alarmed by Obama's willingness to insert himself in the debate as a champion of business concerns. They said his stance was far different than during the presidential election, when Obama was trying to win union votes and called for rebuilding America with union-made materials.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-obama-anxiety16-2009feb16,0,1836201.story
 
  • #41
He also said there isn't any "pork" in the stimulus bill.
 
  • #42
WhoWee said:
He also said there isn't any "pork" in the stimulus bill.
Why is that relevant to the philosophy outlined above?

Also, I believe he said there were no earmarks. And this was probably close to true of the House version (the senate hadn't yet passed their version, when Obama made that statement a couple weeks ago, and it was almost entirely the Senate that put any earmarks in). I don't recall if Futuregen was in the House version, but that's definitely an earmark. But by the standards of the typical spending bill passed anytime over the last 8 years, I'd venture that this one has at least an order of magnitude smaller cut of the bill as earmarks.
 
  • #43
What do you call Harry Reid's railroad and Nancy Pelosi's marsh protection?

Even though he's a lawyer, accustomed to speaking this way, he shouldn't make remarks that are "technically correct" but mislead in spirit.
 
  • #44
Gokul43201 said:
Obama seems to be having a little trouble keeping track of what his political philosophy is supposed to be.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-obama-anxiety16-2009feb16,0,1836201.story

Obama told Fox News that the U.S. "can't send a protectionist message," and he cautioned on ABC News that the requirements could be a "potential source of trade wars that we can't afford at a time when trade is sinking all across the globe."

Perhaps he's just a reflection of America itself:

http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autosales.html"
Jan 2009

Auto
Domestic 88,000
Import 228,000


Truck
Domestic 192,000
Import 149,000

If I've said it once, I've said it three times; Politicians will say and do whatever they have to, to get elected.

And it seems a bit hypocritical to bad mouth Obama for not touting "Buy American" when Americans aren't buying American.

Btw, are those tax breaks for big trucks still in place? Might be something Obama could fix real quick. I know several guys who drive monster trucks to work everyday because their wives do nails for a living.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2002-12-18-suv-tax-break_x.htm"
12/18/2002

Suppose a business owner wants to purchase a $45,000 luxury SUV for use in his business. He could write off $24,000 of the cost under section 179 of the tax code as accelerated depreciation. Then the buyer could write off additional depreciation of the remaining $21,000 under a five-year schedule — 20%, or $4,200, in the first year.

That's a total $28,200 tax write-off in the first year.

Let's see, 100 miles/week * 50 weeks/year @ 15 mpg @ $2/gal = $666.66 / year

hmmm...

That comes out to 42 years worth of free gas.
or 21 years @ $4/gal.

Does anyone know where I can get a business license?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #45
WhoWee: I still don't understand if this is meant to be related to the union philosophy, and how.
WhoWee said:
What do you call Harry Reid's railroad and Nancy Pelosi's marsh protection?
I don't know the specific details about either of them, but anything that Reid's name was attached to was passed only after Obama made the statement that I think you are referring to. And as for Pelosi's marsh protection ... that wasn't proposed by Pelosi, or anyone in the House for that matter. It was the Senate that appropriated money for Cali wetlands. The Senate also appropriated money for Central Utah. Would you call that Orrin Hatch's earmark, or earmarks of the mostly Republican Utah House delegation?

Even though he's a lawyer, accustomed to speaking this way, he shouldn't make remarks that are "technically correct" but mislead in spirit.
I think if you want to get to the spirit of it, you will find that the House version was indeed extremely and, probably unprecedentedly (among the last decade or two) low in things that are not technically earmarks but might be called so. I think that should count as a positive thing.

PS: Futuregen was put in by the Senate, and I think it was stripped out later.
 
  • #46
This thread is about understanding Obama. He said there is no pork in this bill. He's also said no earmarks. The majority of people take him at his word.

I agree, he didn't write the bill and Harry's railroad was snuck in after the comments.

Perhaps he should veto the Bill and keep his word?
 
  • #47
WhoWee said:
Perhaps he should veto the Bill and keep his word?

There may not be time. Apparently the latest numbers indicate that the economy is still in free-fall.
 
  • #48
WhoWee said:
This thread is about understanding Obama.
Okay, so it's generally about Obama. When you wrote "he also said ..." I thought you were implying a connection between these statements and those.
 
  • #49
...Jon Summers, a spokesman for Reid, said the $8 billion is for competitive high-speed rail grants and that all states would have to apply for the funding. He said the maglev is just one project that would be eligible.

He also said Reid supported the funding increase because high-speed rail is a priority of President Obama. In a speech Feb. 10 in Florida, Obama said he wanted to see more "high-speed rail where it can be constructed."...
http://www.masstransitmag.com/online/article.jsp?siteSection=3&id=7968

Ultimately the Sec of Transportation will decide where the money goes, so I don't think this qualifies as pork as it may not serve Reid's constituency. Also, an LA to Vegas run may be be a logical beginning for a national HS rail system. Vegas has been one of the fastest growing areas of the country.

Any project dedicated to infrastructure might be considered someone's pork, but we do need infrastructure. And we are way behind many European and some Asian countries in terms of rail transportation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #50
Gokul43201 said:
Okay, so it's generally about Obama. When you wrote "he also said ..." I thought you were implying a connection between these statements and those.

Fair enough...your comment

"Obama seems to be having a little trouble keeping track of what his political philosophy is supposed to be."

Is really what I responded to...but in the context of the thread..."Understanding Barack Obama".

Much earlier in this thread, I commented that we need to hold Obama to the same standard as Bush Sr. with his "read my lips" comment...I don't expect to have to read between the lines with the Commander in Chief...say what you mean and do what you say...no pork means no pork, no lobbyists means no lobbyists and no earmarks means no earmarks.

However, I'm really not sure what "save or create 3.5 million jobs" really means. It's starting to look like he meant save state jobs...we'll see.
 
Back
Top