So, Um ... Obama Wrote This, Huh?

Interesting. Initially I was researching material to see if I had anything to say about Andrew Sullivan's observation of a turn against Hillary in the Left blogosphere. What the hell has he been reading for a year?

But then I stumbled over this: I linked the cached version, as the original was opening slowly before. Allegedly it was cross-posted on Obama's official Senate blog, but a search didn't appear to turn it up, unless I missed it.

Tone, Truth, and the Democratic Party

by Barack Obama Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 07:38:41 AM PST

(Cross-posted on the Senate blog: http://obama.senate.gov/blog/.)

There are at least, I think, a few interesting passages. The first on Iraq - when you break it down, was he really saying anything different from McCain, or any Republican in 2005? And how does it jibe with his January, 2007 opposition to the surge, in which he claimed Iraq was already in a Civil War and we should be getting out? Is that indicative of his alleged 3 AM type of judgment ... over which McCain will likely take him apart?

My colleague from Illinois, Dick Durbin, spoke out forcefully - and voted against - the Iraqi invasion. He isn't somehow transformed into a "war supporter" - as I've heard some anti-war activists suggest - just because he hasn't called for an immediate withdrawal of American troops. He may be simply trying to figure out, as I am, how to ensure that U.S. troop withdrawals occur in such a way that we avoid all-out Iraqi civil war, chaos in the Middle East, and much more costly and deadly interventions down the road.

Also, in 2005, when it came time to pander to DailyKos, where was the rhetoric of the "I appeal to whispering Republicans" Obama back then? Because this sounds like boilerplate Netroots nonsense to me.

I am not drawing a facile equivalence here between progressive advocacy groups and right-wing advocacy groups.  The consequences of their ideas are vastly different. Fighting on behalf of the poor and the vulnerable is not the same as fighting for homophobia and Halliburton.

Then there's this, as if $4 a gallon for gasoline isn't sacrifice enough because we won't drill, or develop nuclear energy. How is any Ivy Leaguer like his wife Michelle going to pay back their student loan if they have to sacrifice more? Or will college be free, with only energy going through the roof?

Unless we are open to new ideas, and not just new packaging, we won't change enough hearts and minds to initiate a serious energy or fiscal policy that calls for serious sacrifice.

I don't get it. Isn't his stock in trade today telling everyone they've already suffered enough? I'm not hearing a call for serious sacrifice from him today on the stump. Are you? And it's worth noting, while he may, or, geez, he may not bail on Iraq, he is planning on starting up that failed old war on poverty, again - at least rhetorically, if not actually - as he seems to go about everything else, including bi-partisanship unsupported by his record. Personally, I've never understood how the government can lift someone out of poverty, unless it means giving them a state or federal job.

And we won't have the broad political support, or the effective strategies, required to lift large numbers of our fellow citizens out of numbing poverty.

Ultimately, Obama tosses in more than enough high rhetoric, too. But when you break it all down and try to genuinely figure out what the real point, let alone the true principle of it is, ... you can't really come away with a clear answer other than, Obama insists he has it and might get around to sharing it with us one day, if only we elect him, first.

Comments

[jharp]

Mr, Riehl,

My good friend and fishing buddy was lifted out of poverty by the U.S. government and taxpayers.

He grew up on food stamps and a free education. Followed up with government(taxpayer) subsidized student loans through law school.

He now married with three children and practices law.

I hope this answers your question on how the government can lift someone out of poverty.

Cheers.

[Dan Riehl]

Jharp - How dare you insult your friend that way. From what I can see, he lifted himself up out of poverty through hardwork. Unless of course like Michelle Obama, he's complaining about having to pay back those student loans taken out in good faith.

All children get a subsidized but free education BTW - it's called public school. And as for food stamps, I've never advocted doing away with the program where needed.

Now that I think of it, you might be insulting your friends parents, or parent, as well. Didn't they have anything to do with this great success? I bet if your friend ran the streets, or dealt drugs, all the government funding in th world wouldn't have made him a success. Would you disagree with that?

[Erik The Red]

The original can be found here:

http://obama.senate.gov/blog/050930-tone_truth_and_the_democratic_party/index.html#more

It can also be found on the Internet Wayback Machine (http://www.archive.org) if it manages to disappear from its home.

[Dennis D]

Most important about the Obama diary comments is his admission that he will NOT reach accross the aisle and unite America. He wants to stand tough on his liberal principles.

[jhrap]

"Jharp - How dare you insult your friend that way."

I am not insulting my friend. I am quoting my friend. And of course his hard work was a key to his success. Our socialist education system and welfare were keys too as without both he wouldn't have had the opportunity to work towards his goal.

"Unless of course like Michelle Obama, he's complaining about having to pay back those student loans taken out in good faith."

Don't know what Michelle Obama has to do with it but I have never heard one complaint from him regarding paying back his loans.

"Now that I think of it, you might be insulting your friends parents, or parent, as well. Didn't they have anything to do with this great success?"

Of course his mother had a lot to do with it. No Dad.

"I bet if your friend ran the streets, or dealt drugs, all the government funding in th world wouldn't have made him a success. Would you disagree with that?"

Yes, I disagree. People who at one time dealt drugs and ran the streets are not hopeless. They too can become successes.

[Dorkrappa]

Now Ice Cube (jhrap), why you shuckin roun here wit yo s---? You done been readin one of dem jive-a-- bios by liars, ain't chu?

[Fred Beloit]

Ah, the socialist example par excellence. The fatherless child gets a hand-up from the government and this causes him to be a lawyer? That's the best argument I've ever heard against socialism. Thanks, I'll be using this one frequently.

[Fred Beloit]

Say, jhrap, did you ever hear of a great lady, formerly poor peon, Rigoberta Manchu? Just curious. Is you friend's story something like this?

"In her 1982 life story, Menchú claimed that she and her family had been forced to work as peons on a distant coastal plantation for eight months of the year, as millions of other impoverished Mayan farmworkers continue to do every year. According to neighbors, however, the family was sufficiently well-off to avoid this fate. Menchú also claimed that her father refused to allow her to attend school, on the grounds that it would turn her into a non-indigenous "ladino" who would forget her Mayan roots, but in reality, Catholic nuns supported her in a succession of schools until she reached the 8th grade."

Lots more dirt on her here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigoberta_Mench%C3%BA. And more. Go ahead and Google this other par excellence example.

[Fred Beloit]

Say, jhrap, did you ever hear of a great lady, formerly poor peon, Rigoberta Manchu? Just curious. Is you friend's story something like this?

"In her 1982 life story, Menchú claimed that she and her family had been forced to work as peons on a distant coastal plantation for eight months of the year, as millions of other impoverished Mayan farmworkers continue to do every year. According to neighbors, however, the family was sufficiently well-off to avoid this fate. Menchú also claimed that her father refused to allow her to attend school, on the grounds that it would turn her into a non-indigenous "ladino" who would forget her Mayan roots, but in reality, Catholic nuns supported her in a succession of schools until she reached the 8th grade."

Lots more dirt on her here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigoberta_Mench%C3%BA. And more. Go ahead and Google this other par excellence example.

[jhrap]

"The fatherless child gets a hand-up from the government and this causes him to be a lawyer? "

Not quite. However, it did give him the opportunity to become a lawyer.

[jhrap]

Fred Beloit,

No, I have not heard of this person.

And what does this have to do with my friend?

[jhrap]

Just curious here, dittoheads.

Any of you ever visit our National Parks?

I think it's an excellent demonstration that a little socialism isn't such a bad thing.

[WAHOO WILLIE]

"Any of you ever visit our National Parks?"

Ah yes! Thank the two Republican presidents who made the NPS a reality. Of course the whole idea has nothing to do with socialism or really any other "ism" since civilized societies of all governing ideas hae been doing it since we left the fields/forests and began living together. Maybe communilism if we must have an ism.

[WAHOO WILLIE]

Now jhrap to your original position that government programs 'can' raise someone out of poverty. Frankly one would have to be a dunderhead to completely disagree, there are and have been useful programs (The GI Bill for one) and like many other things the good are unfortunately lumped in with the bad. All can be and are misused and are more expensive than they should be because of huge bereaucracies (sp). That's why your hero Bill Clinton took a scissors to welfare, to reform it, because it was NEVER inteded to support 3rd-4th generations. SO do we trim them? Kill them? or just FIX them?

[Fred Beloit]

Dig this crock: "No, I have not heard of this person.

And what does this have to do with my friend?"

One, every liberal knows who Rigoberta is. Because of her the liberal mantra "It may be a bunch of lies but they amount to a higher truth" was created to justify lying propaganda.

Two, I suspect the story of your friend is one of the underpinnings of a so-called higher truth. In other words I don't believe it.

National parks are one thing, not a socialist thing. Budget-busting enforced social entitlements are quite another.

[Fred Beloit]

Hey, Wahoo, jhrap says are you a ditto head? What's a ditto head? Never heard of it.

[Fred Beloit]

What does a dito head have to do with jhrap's friend?

[WAHOO WILLIE]

"a ditto head?"

Fred, that's a Limbo fan, the ones who believe everything Rush says, sad bunch really. Now, I AM NOT a Ditto head but confess to being a Parrothead from waaaaay back. I also know what Socialism means in both it's pure sense and it's true sense. Neither have anything to do with national parks.....ours anyway.

[Fred Beloit]

I grew up with a friend whose family was given FREE cheese to eat by the government. If I recall correctly, it was some kind of dyed and processed cheddar. (The dairy farmers in Wisconsin and the workers in the dye and cheese processing industries benefited as well, because the tax-payers paid for the cheese.)

My friend liked this cheese and it was FREE. Free food tastes more yummy than bought food. My friend quit his job and devoted his attention to eating lots of free cheese. He became obese, clogged from head to toe with cheese, and he died.

"I hope this answers your question on how the government can lift someone out of..." cheeselessness.

[Fred Beloit]

Years ago, jhrap, when the Dems were in charge of all three branches of government (I know, some of you are high school students and don't know anything about the three branches of government; just take my word for it.), the Dems created the Peace Corps. It must be over 40 years ago.

The Peace Corps program is the reason why we have peace all over the world today.

Funny, why does it still exist? http://www.peacecorps.gov/

[Fred Beloit]

Wahoo, I was a Limbo fan. I got under the pole when it was only 5' 3''. Pretty good huh?

[jhrap]

"or just FIX them?"

Without question fix them. Hopefully done best by trimming them.

To be honest corporate welfare pisses me off more than a few lowly welfare cheats.

Case in point in my home town of Indianapolis. $1 Billion tax dollars to build the Colts a new stadium.

How many welfare cheats does it take to add up to a billion?

[jhrap]

Fred Beloit,

I don't really know much about the peace corps. If it's outlived it's usefulness let's pitch it. If if never was worth dam let's pitch it.

The point of my joining your board was the government can and often does make a difference.

And my friend is an excellent example.

[WAHOO WILLIE]

"How many welfare cheats does it take to add up to a billion?"

According to CNN welfare fraud is estimated to cost the country $5 billion a year. As for the Colts or any other sports team, I am for not paying rich atheletes my hard earned money in any way. Imagine how rich they'd be without your paying to watch them. Still, how much revenue does the stadium return to the community? And is it REALLY fair to attack the Fed for a locality's "corporate welfare"? How about the abuse of Emminent Domain? How about the $$$$ that Indiana and other states pour into ethanol, is that OK?

[jhrap]

Wahoo,

"Of course the whole idea has nothing to do with socialism"

It is an excellent example of our National Parks System.

"Socialism refers to a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community."

You need another one?

You ever go boating on the Great Lakes, canoed our rivers, gone to the beach?

Need more or do you see my point?

[WAHOO WILLIE]

"You need another one?"

No JR I dont need definitions I already know and I'm not going to argue with your incorrect interpretation/use of the word.I see how you are *trying* to use it and will concede to your use. No Ive never boated on the Great Lakes. I helped in my small way to clean up Erie, does that count? I'm a volunteer river keeper and I am scary close to *your* beaches.Again, you have permission to misuse the word. Do explain though why it's ok to use my money to protect the beach front homes of the rich?

[jhrap]

"Do explain though why it's ok to use my money to protect the beach front homes of the rich?"

It's not OK.

And my point is the lakes, rivers, and beaches belong to all of us. And can be used by all of us equally.

In other words, Socialism. And it seems to work pretty well.

[Fred Beloit]

Could you find the Great Lakes (Yes sailboated from Saginaw Bay to Mackinac and back, two-week trip. Also spent a lot of time on Rainbow and Oak St beaches while growing up in Chicago. Chicago is now one the highest-taxed big cities in the U.S. and is governed by the Democratics.) and parks in this definition for me? I can't seem to see them.

"

Main Entry:
so·cial·ism Listen to the pronunciation of socialism
Pronunciation:
\ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\
Function:
noun
Date:
1837

"1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

[jhrap]

"According to CNN welfare fraud is estimated to cost the country $5 billion a year."

The billion I referred to was only in Indiana.

The 5 billion you referred to was the entire U.S.

5 billion divided by 50 states = 100,000,000

That would build one tenth of our stadium.

And I'm all for stopping the cheaters. My point was the corporate welfare pisses me off more.

[jhrap]

"1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods"

Thank you, Fred.

100% accurate description of our policies regarding National parks, Great Lakes, Rivers, Beaches.

[Fred Beloit]

"My point was the corporate welfare pisses me off more." OK, corporate welfare would piss me off too. Let's start with this that we can both agree on. Since corporations are owned by shareholders (people like you and I who already pay taxes), corporations should not be taxed at all. Common sense, right? Now what corporate welfare were you thinking about?

[jhrap]

any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership

(Great lakes, National Parks, Rivers, Beaches) are owned by all of us (the government))

and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods (the government (us) regulates how, when, and if we can use them)

Get it?

[Fred Beloit]

"100% accurate description of our policies regarding National parks, Great Lakes, Rivers, Beaches" ???????????????
Look, if you are not a very serious person, like me, hahaha, there will be no point going on with the discussion.

[jhrap]

The Colts are a private company.

As are most corporations.

If you are proposing public companies should be tax exempt where do you propose we get the money to pay our bills.

[Fred Beloit]

I do not, not, concede that government = we. However, the federal government rules the oceanic/gulf beaches. The states rule many rivers and some bays and lakes. Some lakes and beaches are privately owned.

[Fred Beloit]

I am proposing no companies be taxed. Companies are owned by someone who already pays taxes.

[Fred Beloit]

The Colts are a government-approved monopoly. But they should not be taxed. Their owners already are taxed.

[Fred Beloit]

"...where do you propose we get the money to pay our bills."

Money is gotten from PEOPLE who pay taxes.

[Fred Beloit]

The taxes now placed on corporations and companies come from funds that belong to the owners of those entities (or customers of those companies who must make up the loss of money belonging to the owners).

[Fred Beloit]

Look, I've got to go. I'm sorry if I have been harsh with you. We have to deal with people here who are often harsh. You have been mostly courteous. I appreciate it. I recommend you get a basic text on Economics (not by a leftist author though).

[M. Simon]

People should ignore the government incentives to deal drugs (price supports a.k.a. prohibition) and instead focus on government incentives to go to school (student loans).

[seekeronos]

I cannot see how the "government" (effectively a non-profit corporate entity in its own right, if you follow that the citizenry _elects_ its government in much the same way that shareholders elect the board of directors to a corporation) is the same as "the people".

In fact, depending upon the sort of stock and how much of it you own, a stockholder's share (and influence on the company's policies) might vary from substantial to virtually nil.

To the sense that the government is publicly owned as much as a publicly traded company is publicly owned, the average person doesn't "own" rights to government property any more than I would as a partial stockholder in Coca-Cola (for example) to expect to get free helpings of soda from the guy stocking the machines.

Unfortunately, the culture and attitude more often than not bred by socialism is that of a "I can get something for nothing", or more accurately, "I can get something at the expense of everyone else's labour (taxes) time for minimum personal effort"; capitalism on the other hand provides that we produce and bring something to the market (whether it is labour, earned capital, or commodities and resources) in the fairer hope of exacting a measure of value to people on both sides of the deal.

Is either concept perfect? I'd be a fool to think so.

In the meantime, we live in a system that amounts to a somewhat rigourously regulated market, but not so much so that people are uninspired to produce more and better value for their customers.

However, I will readily assert that the practice and observed results of living under a (mostly) free-market economy far exceed those of practiced and applied Socialism (with all the caveats of that nasty mutual foe of all men, "human nature") - where production of value stalls and the people languish for a lack of innovation and a desire to improve their lot, because "the government will always come through" for them.

He is a fool who places undue trust in the hands of evil and froward men to provide for him what he can (and ought) do himself, i.e. "cradle-to-grave" governmental teat-sucking when the time is past for suckling.

[jhrap]

Interesting post, seeker.

I want to be clear that I am a capitalist.

Though sometimes it's in our best interest to do a teeny amount of borrowing of socialist ideals.

Thus, national parks that we can all enjoy, everyone can go to the beach, everyone can boat the many public waterways.

And back to what started this debate, the government can have a demonstrative effect on lifting people from poverty.

Yes, that ugly word, "welfare" sometimes works.