WASHINGTON – A confidant of the man Barack Obama defeated in November said Wednesday that the president-elect has earned enormous global good will and "a moment in time" to re-engage other nations with the United States.
The assessment by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., was noteworthy because he is a conservative Republican and one of Sen. John McCain's closest friends. Graham campaigned vigorously against Obama in last year's presidential race.
Noting himself that he had been "one of the chief opponents" of Obama, Graham pronounced himself now "very pleased" with the president-elect's attitude and policies toward the countries they visited.
Graham appeared Wednesday with Vice President-elect Joe Biden at Obama's transition headquarters. Biden and Graham were there to brief Obama on what they learned during a just-completed five-day, bipartisan fact-finding mission to Kuwait, Pakistan, Afghanistan andIraq.
"I cannot tell you how much enthusiasm we saw in Pakistan for this new president," Graham said, sitting in a chair to Obama's right. "There is a moment in time here for this country to re-engage the international community, to make sure that we have international support to stabilize Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq."
This week, Sens. John McCain (R-AZ), Barack Obama (D-IL), and Joe Biden (D-DE) all were contacted by Defense Secretary Robert Gates or Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice regarding the Iraq security agreement.
In today’s White House press briefing, spokesman Dana Perino explained that the adminstration contacted the candidates “to keep them equitably informed.” “One of them is going to win the election, and they will be taking over and having to deal with these issues,” Perino explained. But nobody called Gov. Sarah Palin. In today’s State Department briefing, reporters got a chuckle out of Palin being left out:
Q: You called Senator Biden, you called McCain. Did you also call Governor Palin?
McCORMACK: No. If you hadn’t noticed, she’s a governor. Not a senator or a congressman.
Q: She’s a vice presidential candidate.
McCORMACK: Right.
Q: She also has extensive foreign affairs experience. (LAUGHTER)
McCORMACK: Right. I explained to you the reasoning behind the phone call.
Q: Maybe if this has to do with Russia, you would have called her.
“First, Bro. Olorunda, I'd like to point out that I have a serious problem with the title of your piece. As I'm sure you're aware, Dick Cheney is often referred to as Bush's brain. So… unless you have some evidence to substantiate that assumed fact…”
Sen. Joe Biden is a 6-term Senator, who served on the Judiciary Committee from 1981 to 1995. He is also the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Sen. Barack Obama is a one-term Senator, who has barely made any landmark difference in the Senate during his short-tenure. Unless one believes in the tooth-fairy, the reason behind the selection of Biden is unmistakable.
“You then go on to say, "Many have queried Obama's obsession with the presidency of JFk , and its unmistakable impact upon the Obama campaign and it's decision-making." What evidence do you have that Obama is "Obsessed" with JFK, and what evidence do you have that this "obsession" is having an "unmistakable impact upon the Obama campaign and its decision making"?
Ted Sorensen, JFK’s chief speechwriter, was quick to point out the glaring similarities in personality, style, poise and position between JFK and BO. He wrote, “Both Kennedy and Obama have fantastically winning smiles and I might say both are very relaxed in front of an audience and on television." Senator Obama received this as a compliment. In January this year, Caroline Kennedy, JFK’s daughter, penned a piece in the New York Times op-ed page, entitled “A President like My Father.” In it, she spoke of the magnificent promises Obama hopes to fulfill, if given a chance at the White House. She concluded her misguiding piece, saying, “I have never had a president who inspired me the way people tell me that my father inspired them.” Obama returned this favor by bestowing upon her, the distinguished opportunity of selecting his V.P.
“You link to an article by Paul Street. Who is he, and what credentials does he have that allows you to be so reliant on his opinion? In other words, what makes Paul Street an authority on either JFK or Obama, and how does he constitute “many”?
You then continue to say, "It does appear rather ironic that Sen. Obama would, just as JFK did in 1960 with Lyndon Baines Johnson, choose a running mate whose rhetoric and record is diametrically misaligned to that of the presidential candidate." What's so "ironic" about Obama's choice of Biden”?
Thanks for granting me the opportunity to expose Sen. Biden and his subordinate (Sen. Obama) for what they truly represent. If Barack Obama is truly honest in his decision to pull-out troops from Iraq, he wouldn’t pick a running mate who formerly stated, “I would support continuing what Democrats are trying to do now: transition our troops out of the civil war and into a limited mission of targeted counter-terrorism operations against Al Qaeda and like-minded groups, training Iraqis and force protection.” A truly progressive candidate wouldn’t select as a V.P, the author of the infamous, “Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994” aka the “1994 Crime Bill” I’m referring to a bill which deposited 100,000 more cops on the street and escalated the incarceration rate of Black and Brown youth. If Barack Obama is the democrat he claims to be, the stark contradictions between his track-record and that of Biden should be self-revealing – unless Obama is in full support of a Police State (which would explain his FISA vote).
“Your reference to "Washington-insiders" is grossly misleading. You were obviously trying to imply that since Biden has been in the senate so long, that constitutes what Obama criticizes as Washington insiders. But your own link clearly demonstrates that Obama is referring to those in Washington who have close ties with Washington lobbyists. Did you fail to understand that, or were you purposely trying to mislead the reader, assuming that they wouldn't bother to check the link?”
To keep it plain and simple, I turn to an ABC News article published yesterday: “The industry that has given Biden the most cash has been lawyers/law firms ($6,567,404) followed by real estate ($1,297,690). Pro-Israel groups are the 8th biggest contributing industry.Obama may decry lobbyist cash (or at least federal lobbyist cash), but Biden has taken $344,400 from lobbyists since 1997 -- making lobbyists the 10th biggest contributing industry.That seems a direct contradiction of the Obama message.”
“All of these flaws were drawn from just your first paragraph. I would go on, but I think I've made my point.”
With all due respect, I believe the article is irrefutable, and I welcome any further attempts at invalidation.
“After reading your piece I'd like to ask you a question in response: What does it profit a man to forfeit his soul and gain nothing? That seems to be what you're asking Black people to do.”
I would like to pose your question back to you. “What does it profit a man to forfeit his soul and gain nothing”? If we cannot lend credence to our conscience, and all we pursue is the felicity of an historical moment, we would have to explain to the next generation - and the one coming after them - why their livelihood was traded for the comfort of the historicalness of Obama’s presidency. As far as I can tell, it’s not just Black folks engaging in quid pro quo.
We've witnessed this scenario before: A Vice-President who not only overshadows his running mate, but dominates the field of play. From JFK-LBJ, to George Bush-Dick Cheney, and even Jimmy Carter-Zbigniew Brzezinski (not a running mate, but a National Security Advisor whose role was expanded beyond comprehension). Many have queried Obama's obsession with the presidency of JFK, and its unmistakable impact upon the Obama campaign and it's decision-making. With this selection of Sen. Joe Biden - the long-winded and often incendiary counterpart - it does appear rather ironic that Sen. Obama would, just as JFK did in 1960 with Lyndon Baines Johnson, choose a running mate whose rhetoric and record is diametrically misaligned to that of the presidential candidate. In 1960, there was no quarrel over the stark contrast in the personalities, proposals and positions of John Fitzgerald Kennedy vis-à-vis Lyndon B. Johnson. As it was in 1960, so it is now. Barack Obama is well aware of the apparent contradiction this selection makes, especially with his claim to being 'Washington-free,' and as a result, most fit to represent the suffering masses. Sen. Biden, a 6-term Congressman, and one who was first elected to the Senate in 1972, cannot possibly pass the smell-test on being 'non-Washingtonian.' With this reality in the bag, it comes as no surprise that Barack Obama would be willing to overwrite his staunch-rhetoric against Washington-insiders, in favor of winning the presidency.
In 1960, JFK selected LBJ for the sole-reason of amassing the southern vote. JFK was willing to overlook Johnson's numerous imperfections and anti-democratic stances. JFK, a Roman Catholic, seems to have not taken Jesus’ prophetic words seriously: "For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and forfeit his soul"? Lyndon Baines Jonson would - after the untimely death of JFK - proceed to escalate the troop-force in Vietnam from 16,000 to 550,000(dying at a rate of 1000 a month), grudgingly sign the Civil Rights Act of 1964 into law, disinvite Dr. King from the White House and later remark, "That goddamn nigger preacher may drive me out of the White House" -- as a result of Dr. King's opposition to the Vietnam War. JFK must have anticipated this possibility, but nevertheless, have viewed the presidency as an "all or nothing" ball-game.
Dick Cheney, infamous for the nickname, "Darth Vader," has without a doubt, played the supreme role in the Bush Administration's foreign-policy and decision-making. It should be alarming to no one, to suggest that George Bush is not the "decider," as he once proclaimed to be. One of the perks of having a Vice-President who has a more comprehensive military record than the actual president is to be completely in the backseat on most - if not all - issues of national security. As a result of this, all progressives, for or against Obama, must begin the interrogation process of Obama's selection, and put maximum pressure upon his pick -- if the last 8 yrs. are to be avoided in the future. Believe it or not, Barack Obama, being naive and young, can be easily manipulated into servicing the will of the Lords of Capital -- all in the name of National Security.
Barack Obama claims to have chosen Biden, because he wants someone who can be "a good president if anything happened to me" (there's that JFK scenario raising its head again). He also stated the need for a "good adviser and counsel to me and tell me where he or she thinks I'm wrong, not just on national security policy but on domestic policy as well" (perhaps the sort of relationship developed between Zbigniew Brzezinski and Jimmy Carter). Above every other factor, Obama expressed his utter-refusal of a V.P. who serves the role of a "Yes man." The failure to acknowledge the insinuations being made by Sen. Obama vis-à-vis his own inexperience, would drive voters to polling stations on November 4th, without any articulable conviction for voting in favor of the Obama-Biden ticket? Obama chose a guy, who, reflecting on Sen. Obama's meteoric rise to the pedestal of political-fame, stated, “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy; I mean, that’s a storybook, man.” A transparent insult upon the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, James Baldwin, Booker T. Washington, W.E.B. Du Bois, Cornel West, Michael Eric Dyson, Henry Louis Gates Jr. Bell Hooks and Rev. Jesse Jackson, was unable to prevent the one-term senator from defending the utterer of such despicable proclamations. Obama, in a Democratic-primary debate, shielded his buddy from any criticism, stating, "I have absolutely no doubt about what is in his heart and the commitment he's made to racial equality in this country." This was 'no doubt' a strategy, later picked up by Tiger Woods, in a moment bearing a similar dilemma. Whether this ticket is a success or not, Obama's dedication to the Black Community should be radically called into question, as he has, knowingly or unknowingly, suggested that Black politicians are unworthy of any serious consideration for the upper echelons of political-office.
When Cynthia McKinney, Green Party Presidential Nominee, was selecting a Vice Preisdent, she made clear what her specific demand was: Someone who had a detailed record of fighting tirelessly for the everyday person. With such a complex requisition, it astounded no one, when McKinney selected long-time activist and journalist, Rosa Clemente as her running mate. Perhaps Sen. Obama can learn a few lessons from McKinney's example, and provide tangible and substantiated evidence as to why he will be the candidate he professes to be. Rhetoric is NOT Reality.
