An estimated 2,000 people attended the rally. The Senator spoke for about 30 minutes. Although brief and short on details, he did however say that the war in Iraq never should have been authorized and that the war has made the world less safe. He touched on the problem of global warming and suggested a national program of developing alternative forms of energy to fossil fuels.

He also spoke of a jobs and education program for people currently incarcerated in the prison system. He mentioned the rebuilding of New Orleans. He also proposed a national health care insurance program. The crowd was very enthusiastic. Cheering often and almost on cue.

error

error

On the Obama website you can read "This campaign is about you," but you can also read "Please do not bring any bags or signs." So much for the "you" and the people. The people were spoon fed with pre-made sign that looked all the same. So much for "This campaign is about you."

Also the guy talked for only 30 minutes. That's 30 minutes for a large city like LA, and what about the Q&A--a dialogue with you and the people, hmmm?

The guys spend 30 minutes in South LA with the people who could not afford the $2,300 dinner in Hollywood, and about 2 hours with people who could afford the dinner in Hollywood.

And of course he had to talk to those wealthy people somewhat in private away from us the people-The media were not invited to this event. I guess that he did not want us to hear what he had to say to those wealthy people. Hmmm, I wonder why?

"BO doesn't pass the smell test"

You got it right, A. Obama was, in the afternoon, "brief and short on details." in South LA.

but over dinner in the evening, I guess that he had more time to talk to those wealthy people, in Hollywood.

I wouldn't judge the guy on how much time he spent at the dinner. He was probably committed to spend a certain amount of time because of the people paying to be there. As for 30 minutes with the people at the rally, he may have had a schedule to stick to on that day. Also he may have campaign or other managers telling him what to do and what to say to which people. Candidates or even possible candidates may at times even feel like they're under the control of his/her managers and other staff members.

This junior senator.
What is his voting record ?
This is not a People rag to promote face recognition for another lackey of the ruling class.
http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=BS030017

Jammer wrote "Candidates or even possible candidates may at times even feel like they're under the control of his/her managers and other staff members."

So basically if the guy as you said is under the control of his staff and apparently, not all in charge, then that would be the kind of president we could get. A president under the control of, let say, special interest. Yea special interest million dollard people. The ones that Obama met in Hollywood over dinner.

You get your family and your best friends over a seat down dinner. You meet, and speak to the rest on the streets.

The facts are that Obama spoke to the people a on potatoe field, but spoke to the wealthy over dinner. What does it tell you?

I see your point but I still don't think these two events are enough to go on to speculate on this Obama fella.

Link:


http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=BS030017

REPOST--In an interview with the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune published September 26, Democratic Senate candidate Barack Obama said he would favor the use of “surgical” missile strikes against Iran if it failed to bow to Washington’s demand that it eliminate its nuclear energy program. Obama also said that, in the event of a coup that removed the Musharraf regime in Pakistan, the US should attack that nation’s nuclear arsenal...
Full article:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/oct2004/obam-o01.shtml

It is reported that in his new book, the "Audacity of hope", he would support the bombing of the nuclear power plants in Iran. Didn't the UN just put out a report that the bombing of the plants would be catestrophic since most of them are located in heavily populated areas?
Heads up people, It's the corporate media that's been promoting him, along with promoting the other front runners in the presidential race.;all who have supported this aggression against the Iranian people.
He would play the role of the liberal presidential candidate of color who would buy off our aquiesence to US imperialist design in the Middle East by promising us some meager social reforms that they do not intend for us to have unless we field a mass movement to force them to conceed.

US Senator Barack Obama and the war in Iraq

Obama has attempted to strike a critical pose toward the war in Iraq—as have the other putative frontrunners, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards. Like his counterparts, however, he is a tried and true defender of the geo-political interests of corporate America. If elected, he would not hesitate in using military force to secure US domination of the Middle East, Central Asia and the world.

Like the rest of the Democratic Party critics of the war, Obama’s differences with Bush are over tactics—not whether, but how best, to defend US imperialist interests.


http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/feb2007/obam-f13.shtml

In his book, he approves Bush Doctrine of endless illegal preemptive wars

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/feb2007/obam-f13.shtml

I'm confused.
Is this a liberal blog or LA Indymedia.
I don't care what his politics are...
it is years away from an election. IMHO there is no reason for Indymedia to be playing into the whole pre-election media frenzy.

By presenting Obama on the front page, LA IMC is giving an opportunity for a dialogue, an Obama-face-off discussion.

We know already that Obama is not for real. IMC is not endorsing anything.

Let us discuss, disclose Obama manipulation of the main stream media, the working class, and the peace movement.

Let us discuss how Obama and other politicians and "leaders" are irrelevant to our movement.

Yes, Obama needs to be exposed

Just leave him to Rodham...she'll take care of him all by herself

You can bet your very last dollar that any candidate that is showcased on the national commercial media is bought and paid for by the rulers. Harlequin outfits ( w/bells and fools cap ) would be a nice visual change and a touch of honesty.
Like Dennis Kucinuch and his subservience to the democrats.
Aren't all of you proud to have voted on the ABB platform?

This from the wsws (see linx above);

"The “war against terrorism” is a code word for never-ending US military interventions to secure control of oil and other strategic resources. One region Obama has in mind is Africa, which has become the venue for a renewed struggle between the great powers for raw materials, markets and influence."

In addition this article describes the eagerness of many (AIPAC influenced) Democrats like Obama to invade Iran, either by 'surgical' missile strike or ground troop occupation as in neighboring Iraq. Since the GW Bush regime is focused on militarizing the border between Iran and Iraq (and US/MEX), isn't this 'troop surge' to Iraq equally likely to be a future invasion of neighboring Iran (also has plenty of oil)??

Following an invasion of Iran by US military, the Saudi Royalty friends of the GW Bush regime would have one less competitor in their virtual global petroleum monopoly of OPEC (then there's populist President Hugo Chavez, though another SOA/CIA trained coup operation may be coming over from Columbia courtesy of US)..

In case people didn't believe that the US military occupation of Iraq isn't about extracting and selling oil, the US invasion of Iran shouldn't cause much doubt (except the corporate media's spin about 'restoring democracy' in Ira/n/q) that once again the petroleum reserves in the Middle East are top priority for BOTH Democrats and Republicans, what with the strident calls for an invasion of Iran coming from the AIPAC Democrat quarters..

So far as Obama's racial distinction goes (first African-american non-European US President would be an accomplishment for anyone, though how about Mumia Abu-Jamal for Prez??), if we haven't learned from Colin "WMD" Powell, Condoleeza "Chevron" Rice and others that racial diversity is just another excuse for politicians who pretend to be on the side of the multi-cultural working people of the US, when in reality they've sold out to corporate rulers long ago..

That's a bit much on the negative critical cynical comments about Obama for now. Let's try to balance this out, how about the next comment be "Three cheers for Obama! Hip, hip hooraaaaaayyyy!!" all the way to Iran??

Hey Pravda, why not define your accusations better? WHO is belittling minority politicicans and WHY could they possibly be doing this??

What is it about the term 'house negro' that you don't understand? A 'house negro' is an individual of African ancestry that does the bidding of their Euro-american master(s) and are usually better rewarded than the 'field negroes' who labor out in the working class world of US segregation. Both Condoleeza "Chevron" Rice and Colin "WMD" Powell fit this description by selling their people into slavery. Look at what Chevron did in Nigeria to the Ogoni while Condoleeza was in their employ. Chevron named an oil tanker after her for her troubles..

The field negroes (ie., African-american military soldiers in Iraq/n), not the house negroes bear the burden of physical punishment when the house negro votes in the masters favor..

Yes, the US is a racist nation and Obama is talking the most conservative game for a Democrat besides the ones from Mississippi to balance out his minority status (ie., appeal to right). Why would ANY Democrat with sound judgement go along with the GW Bush regime and promote an invasion of Iran? Whether Hillary (oh no, another minority! a woman no less!) or Obama or any other Euro-american male Democrat, promoting the invasion of Iran is grounds for serious critique, regardless of their ethnic origin. Complicity and war crimes aren't out of the question either. The rest of the world IS watching!!

It's the pro-war with Iran policies that Obama represents that matter, not whether Obama's mother is a Euro-american woman from Nebraska or what cereal he likes to eat. We can't just roll another pro-war Democrat down the line and be expected to swallow, now can we??

On Friday Obama gave a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in Chicago. It had been much anticipated in American Jewish political circles which buzzed about his intensive efforts to woo wealthy pro-Israel campaign donors who up to now have generally leaned towards his main rival Senator Hillary Clinton.

Reviewing the speech, Ha'aretz Washington correspondent Shmuel Rosner concluded that Obama "sounded as strong as Clinton, as supportive as Bush, as friendly as Giuliani. At least rhetorically, Obama passed any test anyone might have wanted him to pass. So, he is pro-Israel. Period."

Israel is "our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy," Obama said, assuring his audience that "we must preserve our total commitment to our unique defense relationship with Israel by fully funding military assistance and continuing work on the Arrow and related missile defense programs." Such advanced multi-billion dollar systems he asserted, would help Israel "deter missile attacks from as far as Tehran and as close as Gaza." As if the starved, besieged and traumatized population of Gaza are about to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles.

Ali Abunimah, The Electronic Intifada, 4 March 2007

I first met Democratic presidential hopeful Senator Barack Obama almost ten years ago when, as my representative in the Illinois state senate, he came to speak at the University of Chicago. He impressed me as progressive, intelligent and charismatic. I distinctly remember thinking 'if only a man of this calibre could become president one day.'

On Friday Obama gave a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in Chicago. It had been much anticipated in American Jewish political circles which buzzed about his intensive efforts to woo wealthy pro-Israel campaign donors who up to now have generally leaned towards his main rival Senator Hillary Clinton.

Reviewing the speech, Ha'aretz Washington correspondent Shmuel Rosner concluded that Obama "sounded as strong as Clinton, as supportive as Bush, as friendly as Giuliani. At least rhetorically, Obama passed any test anyone might have wanted him to pass. So, he is pro-Israel. Period."

Israel is "our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy," Obama said, assuring his audience that "we must preserve our total commitment to our unique defense relationship with Israel by fully funding military assistance and continuing work on the Arrow and related missile defense programs." Such advanced multi-billion dollar systems he asserted, would help Israel "deter missile attacks from as far as Tehran and as close as Gaza." As if the starved, besieged and traumatized population of Gaza are about to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles.

Obama offered not a single word of criticism of Israel, of its relentless settlement and wall construction, of the closures that make life unlivable for millions of Palestinians.

There was no comfort for the hundreds of thousands of people in Gaza who live in the dark, or the patients who cannot get dialysis, because of what Israeli human rights group B'Tselem termed "one cold, calculated decision, made by Israel's prime minister, defense minister, and IDF chief of staff" last summer to bomb the only power plant in Gaza," a decision that "had nothing to do with the attempts to achieve [the] release [of a captured soldier] nor any other military need." It was a gratuitous war crime, one of many condemned by human rights organizations, against an occupied civilian population who under the Fourth Geneva Convention Israel is obligated to protect.

From left to right, Michelle Obama, then Illinois state senator Barack Obama, Columbia University Professor Edward Said and Mariam Said at a May 1998 Arab community event in Chicago at which Edward Said gave the keynote speech. (Image from archives of Ali Abunimah)

While constantly emphasizing his concern about the threat Israelis face from Palestinians, Obama said nothing about the exponentially more lethal threat Israelis present to Palestinians. In 2006, according to B'Tselem, Israeli occupation forces killed 660 Palestinians of whom 141 were children -- triple the death toll for 2005. In the same period, 23 Israelis were killed by Palestinians, half the number of 2005 (by contrast, 500 Israelis die each year in road accidents).

But Obama was not entirely insensitive to ordinary lives. He recalled a January 2006 visit to the Israeli town of Kiryat Shmona that resembled an ordinary American suburb where he could imagine the sounds of Israeli children at "joyful play just like my own daughters." He saw a home the Israelis told him was damaged by a Hizbullah rocket (no one had been hurt in the incident).

Six months later, Obama said, "Hizbullah launched four thousand rocket attacks just like the one that destroyed the home in Kiryat Shmona, and kidnapped Israeli service members."

Obama's phrasing suggests that Hizbullah launched thousands of rockets in an unprovoked attack, but it's a complete distortion. Throughout his speech he showed a worrying propensity to present discredited propaganda as fact. As anyone who checks the chronology of last summer's Lebanon war will easily discover, Hizbullah only launched rockets against Israeli towns after Israel had heavily bombed civilian neighborhoods in Lebanon killing hundreds of civilians, many fleeing the Israeli onslaught.

Obama excoriated Hizbullah for using "innocent people as shields." Indeed, after dozens of civilians were massacred in an Israeli air attack on Qana on July 30, Israel "initially claimed that the military targeted the house because Hezbollah fighters had fired rockets from the area," according to an August 2 statement from Human Rights Watch.

The statement added: "Human Rights Watch researchers who visited Qana on July 31, the day after the attack, did not find any destroyed military equipment in or near the home. Similarly, none of the dozens of international journalists, rescue workers and international observers who visited Qana on July 30 and 31 reported seeing any evidence of Hezbollah military presence in or around the home. Rescue workers recovered no bodies of apparent Hezbollah fighters from inside or near the building." The Israelis subsequently changed their story, and neither in Qana, nor anywhere else did Israel ever present, or international investigators ever find evidence to support the claim Hizbullah had a policy of using civilians as human shields.

In total, forty-three Israeli civilians were killed by Hizbullah rockets during the thirty-four day war. For every Israeli civilian who died, over twenty-five Lebanese civilians were killed by indiscriminate Israeli bombing -- over one thousand in total, a third of them children. Even the Bush administration recently criticized Israel's use of cluster bombs against Lebanese civilians. But Obama defended Israel's assault on Lebanon as an exercise of its "legitimate right to defend itself."

There was absolutely nothing in Obama's speech that deviated from the hardline consensus underpinning US policy in the region. Echoing the sort of exaggeration and alarmism that got the United States into the Iraq war, he called Iran "one of the greatest threats to the United States, to Israel, and world peace." While advocating "tough" diplomacy with Iran he confirmed that "we should take no option, including military action, off the table." He opposed a Palestinian unity government between Hamas and Fatah and insisted "we must maintain the isolation of Hamas" until it meets the Quartet's one-sided conditions. He said Hizbullah, which represents millions of Lebanon's disenfranchised and excluded, "threatened the fledgling movement for democracy" and blamed it for "engulf[ing] that entire nation in violence and conflict."

Over the years since I first saw Obama speak I met him about half a dozen times, often at Palestinian and Arab-American community events in Chicago including a May 1998 community fundraiser at which Edward Said was the keynote speaker. In 2000, when Obama unsuccessfully ran for Congress I heard him speak at a campaign fundraiser hosted by a University of Chicago professor. On that occasion and others Obama was forthright in his criticism of US policy and his call for an even-handed approach to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

The last time I spoke to Obama was in the winter of 2004 at a gathering in Chicago's Hyde Park neighborhood. He was in the midst of a primary campaign to secure the Democratic nomination for the United States Senate seat he now occupies. But at that time polls showed him trailing.

As he came in from the cold and took off his coat, I went up to greet him. He responded warmly, and volunteered, "Hey, I'm sorry I haven't said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I'm hoping when things calm down I can be more up front." He referred to my activism, including columns I was contributing to the The Chicago Tribune critical of Israeli and US policy, "Keep up the good work!"

But Obama's gradual shift into the AIPAC camp had begun as early as 2002 as he planned his move from small time Illinois politics to the national scene. In 2003, Forward reported on how he had "been courting the pro-Israel constituency." He co-sponsored an amendment to the Illinois Pension Code allowing the state of Illinois to lend money to the Israeli government. Among his early backers was Penny Pritzker -- now his national campaign finance chair -- scion of the liberal but staunchly Zionist family that owns the Hyatt hotel chain. (The Hyatt Regency hotel on Mount Scopus was built on land forcibly expropriated from Palestinian owners after Israel occupied East Jerusalem in 1967). He has also appointed several prominent pro-Israel advisors.

Obama has also been close to some prominent Arab Americans, and has received their best advice. His decisive trajectory reinforces a lesson that politically weak constituencies have learned many times: access to people with power alone does not translate into influence over policy. Money and votes, but especially money, channelled through sophisticated and coordinated networks that can "bundle" small donations into million dollar chunks are what buy influence on policy. Currently, advocates of Palestinian rights are very far from having such networks at their disposal. Unless they go out and do the hard work to build them, or to support meaningful campaign finance reform, whispering in the ears of politicians will have little impact. (For what it's worth, I did my part. I recently met with Obama's legislative aide, and wrote to Obama urging a more balanced policy towards Palestine.)

If disappointing, given his historically close relations to Palestinian-Americans, Obama's about-face is not surprising. He is merely doing what he thinks is necessary to get elected and he will continue doing it as long as it keeps him in power. Palestinian-Americans are in the same position as civil libertarians who watched with dismay as Obama voted to reauthorize the USA Patriot Act, or immigrant rights advocates who were horrified as he voted in favor of a Republican bill to authorize the construction of a 700-mile fence on the border with Mexico.

Only if enough people know what Obama and his competitors stand for, and organize to compel them to pay attention to their concerns can there be any hope of altering the disastrous course of US policy in the Middle East. It is at best a very long-term project that cannot substitute for support for the growing campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions needed to hold Israel accountable for its escalating violence and solidifying apartheid.

* * * * *

Ali Abunimah is the co-founder of The Electronic Intifada and author of One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse