Tuesday, August 21, 2007

So political this morning

I also ran across an article about how the Obama girl video confused Barak Obama's six year old daughter. When asked about the video, Obama said "I guess it's too much to ask, but you do wish people would think about what impact their actions have on kids and families"

I went to elementary school with Dan Quayle's daughter Corinne. THAT was a family nobody gave a shit about, and the Obama girl video is so mild by comparison.

Seriously, Obama, suck it up, and don't let your six-year-old watch TV unsupervised.



Anonymous said...

That reminds me of when Dave Chappelle was talking about being at Disneyworld or someplace like that with his family, and people would come up to him and say, "I'm Rick James, BITCH!."

And his response is, "Uhh, do you mind not calling me a bitch in front of my kids?"

Comrade Kevin said...

I had the same feeling when I read about this in the paper this morning.

It's funny because Obama has said-- in reference to a lot of crap thrown his way that when you run for President, you should expect such things.

And had I been in his position, I wouldn't have taken offense to it. The video was pretty flattering, I would think. Maybe it was tongue in cheek but it's still good publicity.

PG said...

1) I think it's one thing if there's a lot in the press about Obama's being an appeasing, Saddam Hussein-loving, madrassah attendee. Most of that is stuff that a kid under 10 will be both ignorant of and indifferent to. However, given the prevalence of adultery and divorce in America, a little kid may well be disturbed to see a pretty woman on TV kissing photos of the kid's father. I think the "Daddy already has a wife" comment is rather telling about why a kid would be anxious about that and not about anything else that gets tossed out there about Obama. As for not letting a six-year-old watch TV unsupervised, I didn't get from the article that Obama's girls are watching late night HBO alone. My parents were very strict with our TV -- my mom even would turn off the TV when married couples kissed on family sitcoms -- but my dad would leave CNN on with the assumption that if we watched, it was educational. If we had questions about what we say, we'd ask our parents (thus leading to some long lectures from Dad about the evils of taxation), but I certainly never saw images of my Dad being a sex object to a strange woman. So I don't think we can plausibly put this incident down to some kind of bad parenting on the Obamas' part.

2) I wouldn't be surprised if Obama is wary about the video because of the negative advertising used against Rep. Harold Ford in the last election. A black politician who has a kneejerk negative reaction to a highly publicized video of a white woman declaring her massive sexual attraction to him -- even as a total joke -- is being paranoid but not irrational.

Bill Baar said...

Obama much prefers we talk about anything other than real issues. So we get this goofy stuff about his family and values.

He's the standard Chicago progerssive indebted to the machine which seems to have taken them over all.

They'll talk about making the neigborhood a nuclear free zone instead of talking about why the streets are filled with pot holes or garbage lying about. (In Obama's case, his slumlord patron).

It would be a farce except the Chiocago Police have gone bonkers to boot, and Obama doesn't seem to inclined to call them out either.

The guy is a massive tragedy, and that he's hoodwinked so many outside Chicago a crime.

PG said...


You might have noticed that CC said, When asked about the video, Obama said... He did not bring up the issue spontaneously; he was asked and he said what he thought and then he moved on to substantive issues like whether Clinton should have voted for the war in Iraq and whether her foreign policy will essentially continue what has been done for the last 7 years.

But yeah, a guy who used his magna cum laude Harvard law degree and Law Review EIC resume to work at a 12-lawyer firm that specialized in helping develop low-income housing, when he could have worked at Sidley Austin for $70k in his first year (1991) -- he must only be looking out for #1. Truly, a massive tragedy is he.

Out of curiosity, since you're interested in "real issues," what do you think should be done about the need for low-income housing in urban areas? Projects? rent control? government grants to the private sector? shipping poor people out of the city en masse?

Bill Baar said...

Out of curiosity, since you're interested in "real issues," what do you think should be done about the need for low-income housing in urban areas? Projects? rent control? government grants to the private sector? shipping poor people out of the city en masse?

In how many words?

I do blog you know. Try following me there. Also on Illinoze (a general political blog for Illinois) and Prairie State Blue (a progressive kos like blog for Illinois).

Chicago's Carl Davidson, an old left activist who knows Obama, called Obama ... a
triangulator par excellence.

Part of the triangulation is derailing and avoiding anything meaningful by instead focusing on mumbo jumbo on fatherhood etc... lecturing African American men as though they need to be singled out.

Obama gets more and more offensive to me every day.

PG said...

I'm glad to hear that you blog. As none of your blogs appear to have a way to search them for the specific topic of low-income housing, would you be so kind as to link some of your writing on the subject?

It sounds like triangulation to you means that one looks at a problem (e.g., disproportionate and endemic poverty among some African Americans) that has multiple causes (e.g., bad health and education infrastructure, lingering segregation and racism, and limited intra-family resources for children) and focuses on all three causes rather than just the one that the government can fix directly (the infrastructure).

I guess to me this seems politically realistic; you will not get political support from a broad swath of voters for investing in housing, schools and hospitals in minority neighborhoods unless middle-class voters' ideals of family responsibility are being at least somewhat lived out. Perhaps African American fathers ought not be "singled out," but until the perception of voters of other races changes, good luck raising taxes or incurring debt in order to fix the housing, schools and security shortage.

Bill Baar said...

Use blogger's search options.

I'm our Church's point guy on the Social Justice Committee for our work with our community's homeless shelter: Lazerus House. I sleep there once a month or more often as needed. Whatever expertise that gives me on homelessness: work perhapes counts more than words or thoughts.

Having a dealer like Tony Rezko scam taxpayers on low income housing is no solution, nor is Resko and his friend Aiham Alsammarae's (the former Minister of Electricity and now convicted and fugitive from Iraq) deals to build power plants in Iraq any better.

There are some odd circles orbiting Senator Obama for sure.

Email his office and ask for his response to the Alsammarae family on springing him from jail in Iraq, and now, extrdicting him back... absolute silence in response.

PG said...


I searched all your blogs, and your posts that mention housing mostly seem to be quoting other people, and neither your writing nor those quotes includes analysis of or solutions to the shortage of low-income housing. Given that you said Obama sounded "ridiculous" for having part of his reply to a question on this issue be "I have experience in this area, having worked at the community level," I'm surprised that your eventual response when I ask for what you THINK should be done about the problem -- after citing see generally your blogs -- is "Whatever expertise that gives me on homelessness: work perhapes counts more than words or thoughts."

I've participated in the NYC homeless population count each year I've lived here, but I wouldn't claim that interacting with homeless people has given me expertise on how to solve NYC's shortage of low-income housing. (Particularly given the number of homeless people I've encountered whose homelessness stems from a more complicated matrix of mental health concerns, joblessness and family problems, and not just having trouble finding an affordable place to live.) My fiance probably has a much better idea, having worked with tenants threatened with eviction and seen the actual point at which people lose their homes, and the deals that are made in housing court among judges, tenants' advocates and landlords. He wouldn't hold himself out as an expert either.

Bill Baar said...

Rezko's got a deep hook into Obama and arguing my bonafides to talk about Obama's patron and slumlord Rezko isn't going to let Obama off PG.

Behind the progressive facade, Obama's a creature Emil Jones and Illinois's pay-for-pay politics. That's why Obama backed Stroger for Prez of the County Board.

Fitz takes Rezko to trial in Feb 2008. Watch this unravel.

There's what Obama says. There's what Obama writes. And then there's what Obama does. All three can be awfully different.

It's what he does (and votes) that's important and he's awfully connected with some of the worst Illinois has to offer.

PG said...


It's what he does (and votes) that's important and he's awfully connected with some of the worst Illinois has to offer.

So far you've pointed to his having received campaign contributions from people later revealed to be lousy landlords and alleged criminals. Please indicate what he has actually, positvely *done* or a bad vote he has made. In a political system where people make campaign contributions and the public financing is dwarfed by the private, almost any candidate will have some sort of "dirty" money donated to him, unless he vets every individual who writes him a check. I judge politicians more by what they do after they get the money than by who gives it to them. If you can show me that Obama pushed to keep giving a slumlord business after Rezko was KNOWN to be such, then I'll agree that Obama is a bad guy. Until then, I'll think that he was making a sincere effort to increase the amount of low-income housing in the area, and unfortunately picked the wrong guy to do the job. I asked for your solution to the housing problem because I thought perhaps you had one that would ensure that crap landlords *never* got public monies, and I was curious to hear what it would be.

Bill Baar said...

Obama endorsed Todd Stroger over progressive Democrat Forrest Claypool.

Obama's silence on Daley and the Chicago Police Dept's ongoing torture of suspects.

Obama endorsed Rich Daley to raise massive amounts of cash. Steve Rhoades nailed it at the start,

For all his talk of representing a new kind of politics, Obama's every move smacks of business-as-usual. It's not just that his endorsement of Daley - just days after Hillary Clinton announced she was joining the race - sends a message to the city's big money people and other players still on the fence that there will a price to pay in mayoral vengeance should they side with Clinton over Obama.

It's that it puts to rest any doubt that Obama is anything but at the center of the same old machine, the same old fundraisers, the same old tactics, and, in the end, the same old cynical political calculations.

Obama has now endorsed Richard M. Daley, Todd Stroger, Alexi Giannoulias, and, just to be clear about all that against-the-war-from-the-beginning talk, Joe Lieberman. He made a real estate deal with Tony Rezko, and now is trying to tap Carl McCall, the former New York comptroller whose fingerprints are all over the Stuart Levine pension fund scandal. His advisors include Bill Daley and the telecom lobby.

So just what kind of new politics does Obama represent? Better manners?

And it's rolling in at massive amounts. It's not just Archer Daniel Midland lending Obama the corporate jet anymore,

Paul Green, political scientist at Roosevelt University in Chicago, said the financial windfall for Obama is in line with the state’s tradition of using campaign contributions not just to get someone elected nationally, but also to stay on the right side of people who hold power locally — no matter how a national election turns out.

In Illinois, that means pleasing Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley, Sen. Dick Durbin, and a state-level Democratic Party that holds total control in Springfield. And all of those heavy hitters have lined up behind Obama.

“There’s more to it than just Obama and his ’vision.’ … It’s a strategic decision” to donate to him in Illinois, said Green. “Mayor Daley is going to be around awhile. Obama, win or lose, is going to be around awhile. So you protect your interests.”

Obama's a human cash register and the money won't be used to run for Prez but to further entrench some awful Politicans in Illinois.

Our only hope is Fitz well send the bunch to FPC Duluth.

PG said...

Endorsements of moderate Democrats, "silence" on something that occurred mostly in the 1970s (though Obama should make a statement in favor of compensation of victims who can prove the torture even if the statute of limitations has run out), and accepting campaign contributions.

You said "It's what he does (and votes) that's important" -- what are the votes that should be troubling me?

Bill Baar said...

Endorsements of moderate Democrats

Todd Stroger's a bum. He's fired front line health care workers at Cook County Hospital while giving six figure jobs to family and friends.

Obama had an opportunity to use his clout to line up with Progressive Politics and endorse Forrest Claypol. Instead Obama betrayed him. Obama could have reformed Cook County and decided not too.

....silence" on something that occurred mostly in the 1970s...

It's happening in Chicago on a weekly basis. The night Obama spoke to the AFL-CIO the cops shot other kid in the back. We're getting the cops beatings on videos now too. The Dept's Spec Ops (the politically connected guys) are out of control.

-- what are the votes that should be troubling me?

I'd say Obama's amendment to help scuddle the comprimise on immigration reform a nice start.

The amendment infuriated Graham, a South Carolina Republican with close ties to another presidential hopeful, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. Pacing the Senate floor and waving Obama's amendment, Graham loudly accused Obama of undermining a delicate agreement whose advocates have shown political courage.

Issues that require bipartisanship often fail, Graham said, "because some people, when it comes to the tough decisions, back away." Obama's amendment, he said, would destroy the bill's prospects and bring special woe to Republicans -- such as himself -- who have endured conservatives' searing criticism for backing it.

And one of those reasons Obama backed away was he didn't want to defend immigration reform back home in Illinois where progressives have become confused on where they stand with it.

Bill Baar said...

....silence" on something that occurred mostly in the 1970s...

Right, when Mayor Daley was State's Attorney and turned away from asking too many questions about it.

PG said...

I guess I haven't signed on to the part of progressiveness that insists it's more important to get *something* passed, no matter its substance, than to make sure we're not stuck with legislation of dubious wisdom for half a generation. If Obama's amendment to sunset a provision after 5 years rather than 14 years -- 5 years giving enough time to see how the measure actually plays out (cf. 1996 welfare reform, which had a similar length before it had to be reauthorized) -- was enough to kill the bill, then I'm worried about what's getting pushed through with this bill.

Bill Baar said...

The Kennedy-Bush immigration bill was a comprimise that made no one happy but would have been a step in the right direction and brought some relief to many illegals.

This Congress has done so little, and this rare opportunity to bring sides together was lost.

Obama didn't help. It's a huge failure for a guy were the premis of his campaign is to do just the opposite.

PG said...

This Congress has done so little, and this rare opportunity to bring sides together was lost.

Er, wasn't Obama's amendment voted down anyway? Was there someone who had been in favor of the bill before the amendment was brought up, who after the amendment's defeat was opposed to the bill? Your claim that he bears responsibility for the failure of reform to pass doesn't make much sense otherwise.