CNN Sifting Through YouTube Submissions

Unless Senator Obama did not accept any funds or assistance from MoveOn.org, he stood at the podium in Pennsylvania and misled the American people during the Democratic Debate between him and Senator Clinton; and no one challenged him. Standing at the podium next to Senator Clinton, Barak Obama said:

“…we are at a defining moment in history, our nation is at war, our planet is in peril, our economy is in a shambles…the American people have lost trust in their government…Most importantly I believe that change does not happen from the top down, it happens from the bottom up…we decided we were not going to take PAC money…we were not going to be subject to special interest groups…and most importantly I believe that change does not happen from the top down but from the bottom up…the Commander in Chief sets the mission, the generals carry out that mission…deliver on jobs then it is absolutely vital that we form a new political coalition in this country…and that’s what I’m going to do when I am president of The United States of America.

Let’s just take a realistic look at what Barak Obama said and what he did not say. Let us ferret out his real meanings. “…we [are] in a defining moment in history; [based on the following litany of items] our nation is at war, our planet is in peril, our economy is in a shambles…the American people have lost trust in their government...”

He said that we [are] at a defining moment. Which one of these things makes for a defining moment? Is it war? America has been at war before and under much worse conditions with even greater challenges. Therefore, war cannot logically be the defining moment. Obama said “…our planet is in peril.” By whose definition is the planet in peril? Is it Al Gore with whom he claims to be in regular contact; certainly it is not by a consensus of the scientific community? Scientist may agree that climatic conditions may be better managed by careful conservation and attention to climatic variables and industrial practices, but the community of scientists has not pronounced the planet to be in peril.

Once more, this appears as fear mongering and more political spin, which Obama says he is against. Again, no one challenged him on this. Obama said “…our economy is in a shambles.” Is the economy in a shambles? The economy is within reasonable recovery given some fiscal responsibility from congress, lower taxes and a stop to the hemorrhage of Jobs to overseas companies in the effort to “globalize the economy.” To say that the economy is in shambles, however, reveals either a paucity of economic acumen, or more political spin on his words and perhaps and even fear mongering. The economy has recovered from far worse conditions and is only in a shambles in terms of political rhetoric. In terms of economics it is in a down turn and some states are moving into recession while others are not. This is not like the Great Depression when the economy was indeed in a shambles. The defining moment, then, cannot be the economy because it is in better shape than at other times in history, including when FDR or Jimmy Carter was president.

Obama goes on to say that “…the American people have lost trust in their government.” That is more political spin and fear mongering. The American people have lost confidence in the politicians but not the constitution and the political system they live under; which is the government. The politicians are members of the government who can be replaced, and many of them should be replaced. The lowest level of confidence in any political body was in the body congress when the democrats captured it; with Nancy Pelosi drawing far worse criticism than President Bush even when Bush’s ratings were at a low point. So while the American people are dissatisfied with the politicians, they remain confident in the American constitutional system of government as the Founding Fathers established it. Is it the politicians or the government that Obama is inveighing against?

In speaking about the political system which he intends to change, Obama said “…we decided we weren’t going to take any PAC money…we were not going to be subject to special interest groups.” This idea has been broached before. It is more political spin. What he did not mention is the huge investment in his campaign by MoveOn.org, that billionaire George Soros controls. This is not the defining moment. In defending of his position on security he criticized the Bush Administration for the Iraqi War. In order to attempt a deflection of criticism on his position he attacked Bush. Here again it is more political spin. This type of fallacy is called argumentum ad hominem. It is a popular form of political spin. When one’s argument cannot defeat the opposing argument, the trick is to attack the person in order to undermine his credibility by casting aspersion on his person. At the same time, the ad hominem thrust deflects attention from the faulty argument by the conveyor of the fallacy to the opponent.

Barak Obama criticizes President Bush to deflect the paucity of his own military acumen “…The commander in Chief sets the mission. That’s not the role of the generals…The president sets the mission. The generals and our troops carry out that mission.” No president has ever won a war. Presidents do not design strategic plans and win wars. Presidents do not wage war without congressional approval. Presidents are informed by the generals and other military and intelligence personnel so that they can make the wisest decisions concerning the geopolitical or other relevant considerations. His use of the word agenda, here, is yet another example of political spin. He either does not know, or did not wish to state, that agenda refers to a political consideration, and in a war the strategy is a military consideration. Applying the word agenda here creates the fallacy of non sequitur; the word agenda does not follow logically from the argument for military strategy. Obama was careful to avoid the use of the word strategy.

Obama claims to be a straight talker. He says that the people don’t want spin and PR but honest conversation. But his words contradict him. He has said hardly anything that did not have political spin or fear mongering. His arguments are full of fallacy and duplicity. But this also is not the defining moment.

Barak Obama went on to say “…and most importantly I believe that change does not happen from the top down but from the bottom up.” Then, he pledged to enlist the “people” in the bottom up political movement for change. Now this is the defining moment!

The question that arises, here, is why the community of journalists had not asked that Obama clarify what he means by “change from the bottom up.” The significant changes in history have come from those educated enough to provide the leadership for change. Historically the words “bottom up” refers to a revolution wherein the top organizes the common people to rebel. Change can mean anything within the spectrum of human ideas. But unless the term change is connected to a specific idea or principle, it is arbitrary. Obama does go on to provide a hint of reference for his idea of change. He connects the bottom up change with a new political coalition, which he as president will lead. The idea that comes into focus is one wherein Obama as president (at the top) leads the bottom (the common people) in a movement for political change that creates a new political coalition (from the top down). In certain parlance the word for the bottom class is proletariat and the change is coupe d’état.

Obama seems to be saying a couple of things here that are likely to create some anxiety on the part of Middle America. Since he is referring to the creation of jobs, he is focusing on the domestic scene rather than on international politics. It is unlikely that he will have any interest or ability to stop the hemorrhage of American jobs abroad. So, a new political coalition could mean changing the elected representatives who are presently in office. But this could hardly be accomplished without some sort of revolutionary mandate. Elected officials cannot be removed by fiat. In Obama’s own words [to] “…deliver on jobs then it’s going to be absolutely vital that we form a new political alliance in this country…and that’s what I’m going to do when I am president of the United States of America.”

His position implies that the present political alliance, (the current political order?), is incapable of creating jobs. Jobs that are created politically are reminiscent of WPA and CCC during the great depression. These were public jobs created by the government. Obama’s socialist posture does invite speculation along those lines. Beyond some sort of political restructuring, however, we are left to speculate as to whether Obama is calling for political change within the present American political system or calling for change of the present political system. To “deliver on jobs,” Obama would normally have to adhere to the concept of economic stimulus, which is tied to the supply and demand curve, which stimulates production and employment; the usual Keynesian approach of pumping money into the economy. The only other obvious alternative is to create jobs without stimulating the market; that is to create a command economic structure that creates government sponsored jobs, as in WPA or CCC.

This is a source of anxiety for many Americans. The unanswered question is whether or not Obama is actually calling for a socialist revolution without openly saying it for fear of political reprisals prior to the election or simply electioneering. Understandably, Obama’s rhetoric is music to the ear of many minorities who have been displaced from manufacturing jobs, and finding other employment due the lack of high school education; ergo lack of opportunity. A significant number of the unemployed cannot even read or write effectively enough for any employment that requires literacy. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services about 50% of the nation’s unemployed between the ages of 16-21 are functionally illiterate. The routine factory jobs they could command are disappearing along with the jobs fleeing offshore. Obama does not mention how he will protect American jobs but refers to how he will “… deliver on jobs…” whatever that means.

But Obama’s rhetoric is discord to the ear of those who are not in that “bottom” category. The average home owner, for example, is not comfortable with drastic reform in the political economy that will jeopardize their holdings and security. The average educated apartment dweller is also not comfortable with drastic reform to the political economy that will raise his taxes and lower his standard of living. Only a small minority would be comfortable with introducing command economy elements, such as price controls, market and production controls and more regulation over business, and they are the consumers at the bottom who have no understanding of economics. One of the principle fears among the middle class is that small businesses and entrepreneurs will be sacrificed on the altar of Obama’s change, and that the general living standards and quality of life for everyone, including the “bottom” will suffer a major decline. These fears are very real but they are not given a voice in the controlled media.

Since the bulk of the American workforce obtains from the vast array of small businesses, there is a legitimate fear among entrepreneurs that strangling small businesses with higher taxes and greater regulation to pay for government reform will cripple the free enterprise system.

Obama makes light of the war on terrorism; it is a familiar posture of the Democratic Party. But Americans do not make light of it. They are concerned about the security of our nation and the protection of our citizens, as well as the best possible security for our troops. Barak Obama’s proposal for a complete withdrawal from Iraq, even if the military leadership advises against it, is frightening. He says that he will hold direct talks with Mahmoud Ahmadinajad, the world’s leading state sponsored purveyor of terrorism. While he hopes to present an image of decisiveness he is presenting an image of recklessness. Holding talks with terrorists or their sponsors is akin to standing in a burning house and talking to the flames, expecting some compromise with the fire. This approach to foreign policy seems to rest more on hubris than common sense.

Given that Obama’s politics strikes fear in the hearts of middle class white America, his popularity is difficult to account for without the massive efforts of MoveOn.org, New York Times, Oprah Winfrey, and the intensive PR campaign launched to promote him. The media has not only favored Obama but, has promoted him as some kind of messiah while comparatively minimizing Hillary’s exposure. The organized left wing cabal has made their efforts to elect Obama strikingly obvious. It is impossible to deny that the issues about his close alliance for 20 years with Jeremiah Wright are immensely important. A black preacher and close friend with radical anti American opinions who calls for God to Damn America is not something to dismiss when the presidency is at stake. That Obama has been “the chosen one” as the candidate for president by the left political interests is blatantly obvious.

What is equally obvious is that Hillary Clinton would have been assured the nomination had Obama not enjoyed the power from the left that has propelled him into the limelight. The community of entrepreneurs certainly does not favor Obama.

What are Obama’s chances of being elected president? It all depends on how long it takes for the winner to be chosen. The Obama janissaries are fully aware that the longer the contest between he and Hillary continues, the lesser his chances of securing the nomination become because the media cannot continue to suppress his exposures. Other sources will present the case against him. The left wing democrats, therefore, have been calling on Hillary to step down and give the nomination to Obama. Time is on her side, not his. But there may be a surprise in store. The party may decide that choosing Hillary will provoke the Obama camp to strong reaction, perhaps even widespread civil disobedience. By the same token, choosing Obama may elicit a strong reaction from the Hillary camp. Either way the party will be split apart. JB

Jon Bodenet of NY 5:48AM May 03, 2008