Posted on 07/13/2008 8:50:38 PM PDT by cdchik123
Ryan Lizza writes a New Yorker article entitled "Making it: How Chicago shaped Obama." If you ask me, Barack Obama does not come off well here. Calculating politicians, ready to find scapegoats and godfather to pull levers for him and shower money unto him. But more importantly, 15 pages later, I find no evidence that Obama accomplished anything other than helping out on Project Vote. My guess is that he allied himself with ACORN on that one, but we don't see any information on that.
Lizza ignores his work on what he calls the two "liberal foundations" -- which is wrong -- especially because the Ayers connection comes up later. I could go on but this is the must read of the week. He is just a Machiavellian politician. And it is nice to know he once subbed for "Israel lobby" critic John Mearsheimer, and that he advised Governor Blagojevitch, who may be indicted over the Rezko affair.
Hillary and the PUMA’S strike back....... Love to see the Rat’s nervous.
I’d like to see a photo of the New Yorker cover again. It makes me laugh.
ping
Thanks!
She’s looking very Angela Davis....
No?
Yes!
save
You took the words out of my mouth. She looks like a cross between Angela Davis and Patty Hearst.
You know, I’ve gotta believe that the GOP has some seriously, incriminating stuff on B. Hussein and I’d venture to say that from October 1 - November 4 you’re going to see a bloodbath.
I still think something is going to surface from the “Larry Sinclair” thing. I believe they’ve got some very incriminating stuff on the Obamessiah.
Comments anyone?
Forgive my ignorance but, “The New Yorker” is NOT a conservative magazine is it?
I’ve always believed that Obama is an empty suit and that everyone that he has had to say “That’s not the so and so I thought I knew” are the ones really pulling his strings.
I believe there is more out there connecting him to Calypso Louie and Islam, and BLT.
Not from what I have observed.....
I haven’t read the article, but my first guess would be that it’s a cursory investigation into his political roots. The goal is to publish it in less read periodical so they can later say, “Move on, it’s old news. The press already looked into this. Nothing to see here....”
Excellent.....
That would have been absolute perfection.
The painting of Mohammed is a little redundant to the obama muslim costume, and would have actually been more appropriate to see a painting of that nasty racist Malcolm X.
You know that the obama people have contemplated putting crap like that in our Federal buildings.
Looks like Osama bin Laden!
You are right!
Below you will find my favorite cartoon to post!
I wish I had the intelligence to be a fighter pilot as I would love to have this image painted onto my ordnance!
Such a move would get me into big trouble though! I am not politically correct enough!
This is without a doubt, Hillary’s people doing a hit job.
You can bet that her flying monkeys are working over time on Obama. By the time they are done with him, he won’t recognize himself.
Thanks for the ping!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2043664/posts
Was ACORN Obama’s First Political Party?
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OWFiN2NiNTI0NzNmZjVhZmYyZGY2YmNkMmU2ZmNmYzM=
And in reference to the article, Byron York writes this morning:
Obama and 9/11 [Byron York]
Speaking of The New Yorker this week, the article that the cover art accompanies, a long piece on Obama by Ryan Lizza, quotes at some length from Obama’s response to the September 11 terrorist attacks. And it was kind of…tepid. In the Hyde Park Herald on September 19, 2001, Obama wrote that the U.S. needed to improve security at airports, improve intelligence and “be resolute in identifying the perpetrators of these heinous acts and dismantling their organizations of destruction.” Beyond that, Obama called for understanding — lots and lots of it.
(Obama said) We must also engage, however, in the more difficult task of understanding the sources of such madness. The essence of this tragedy, it seems to me, derives from a fundamental absence of empathy on the part of the attackers: an inability to imagine, or connect with, the humanity and suffering of others. Such a failure of empathy, such numbness to the pain of a child or the desperation of a parent, is not innate; nor, history tells us, is it unique to a particular culture, religion, or ethnicity. It may find expression in a particular brand of violence, and may be channeled by particular demagogues or fanatics. Most often, though, it grows out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair.
We will have to make sure, despite our rage, that any U.S. military action takes into account the lives of innocent civilians abroad. We will have to be unwavering in opposing bigotry or discrimination directed against neighbors and friends of Middle Eastern descent. Finally, we will have to devote far more attention to the monumental task of raising the hopes and prospects of embittered children across the globe—children not just in the Middle East, but also in Africa, Asia, Latin America, Eastern Europe and within our own shores.
07/13 11:02 PM
But he’s the Messiah. Where from comes all the hate in Libland?
Think back to the hatchet job the very same NYer did on Linda Tripp shortly after the Tripp-Lewinsky story broke.
Not at all. This is more a gentle expose of what's under the rocks (in a friendly publication that buries the most damning negatives in the middle of a 15-page story that most people won't read past the first few pages) in a manner that's makes it seem like "everybody does it," so let's all let out a big yawn when and if Republicans try to use his grubby, calculating, ruthless political history to "smear" him.
Or, in the author's own words:
"...a classic Obamaism: superficially critical of some unseemly aspect of the political process without necessarily forswearing the practice itself. ...one of the greatest skills a politician can possess is candor about the dirty work it takes to get and stay elected."
As with all articles about Obama, I read it with an eye to trying to understand who and what he is. I also keep looking in vain for any particular thing he has ever DONE to back up his rhetoric.
For over a year now I've wondered about that "community organizer" description. It's meant to conjure up visions of a guy who's marched and protested to right wrongs and get things done for his community. But Obama hasn't done ANY of those things.
He's called a "civil rights attorney". But even this long article doesn't give one single example of any case or other action where he fought for civil rights.
After reading many stories I had concluded that he wasn't an "activist" nor an "organizer". (Well, maybe a POLITICAL organizer.) As far as I could tell, all he's ever done is move money out of tax coffers or non-profit tills into the pockets of his political cronies.
Then I read that his first job offer out of law school was from Rezco. But he turned it down and went to work for that "civil rights" lawfirm. (We're supposed to swoon now!). BUT...two weeks ago in the Boston Globe they revealed that the firm had deep business ties to Rezco and the "public housing redevelopment"industry. Several media investigations have failed to reveal ANY work he did there. Two yrs later Rezco and friends bankrolled his first political campaign.
I began to think Obama's going to work for the law firm was just another political calculation...worked out between him and his developer friends. He needed political backers. And he needed a place to land until he could run. They needed someone on the inside to steer public money their way. He would become their patron.
Now, reading Lizza's article, I came across this:
Gradually, Chicago caught up with the rest of the country and media-driven politics eclipsed machine-driven politics...This new system became known as “pinstripe patronage,” because the key to winning was not rewarding voters with jobs but rewarding donors with government contracts.So there it is. Note the absence of any consideration of actually DOING ANYTHING FOR THE PUBLIC! Obama was never anything more than a money spigot for businessmen relying on public funds. I read this article with a specific eye out for anything Obama had ever done for the people. It's not there. NO LEGISLATION. NO CIVIL RIGHTS CASES. NO LAW CASES AT ALL. NO MARCHES ON CITY HALL. NOTHING!E. J. Dionne, Jr., of the Washington Post, wrote about this transition in a 1999 column after Daley was reëlected. Dionne wrote about a young Barack Obama, who artfully explained how the new pinstripe patronage worked: a politician rewards the law firms, developers, and brokerage houses with contracts, and in return they pay for the new ad campaigns necessary for reëlection. “They do well, and you get a $5 million to $10 million war chest,” Obama told Dionne.
Finally, in 2003---as he prepared for his Senate campaign---the Dem leader in the statehouse gave him a bunch of bills that had been bottled up while Republicans ran the house. Now they could come up to vote and the guy says openly he gave them to Obama because he needed a legislative record. Read that again....his entire legislative record was CREATED FOR HIM IN JUST THE YEAR BEFORE HIS SENATE CAMPAIGN.
In summary, this is not a man who's done great things for people. He's done great things for himself. And this article is surprisingly forthright about that.
Excellent post. I’m with you- I’ve read and researched trying to learn what makes this guy tick. What does he care about? What does he believe in? There’s a driving force around a central theme- finding ways to get next to the players and then getting elected to various offices as a means to getting elected to the next higher office.
But to what end?
What does he believe in? Himself.
I think it’s a sort of narcissism akin to Bill Clinton’s issues with his father’s abandonment, his drunken stepfather, being the fat kid (Obama too!), etc. Like Clinton, such people want to have it all ways.
I just think Obama’s more calculated than even Clinton. It’s now become clear to me that he will advocate liberal policies, describing them in conservative terms. There will be nothing conservative about him, no bones to the right. But he will always TALK conservative. And, in the end, he won’t care whether his policies work or not. Like Clinton, he will only care about his press clippings.
In its totality, this New Yorker piece is cleverly pro-Obama.....as is to be expected from any New Yawk left-wing ragazine.
The Messiah actually is praised with faint damns in this less-than-comprehensive article.
For example, unspoken is Obama's affiliation with the Gamaliel Foundation, a murky entity which has been described as a "synthesization of the alien roots of radicalization, Marxism, Utopian Socialism, syndicalism and the French Revolution".
The Foundation funds networks of grassroots organizations working among the underclasses to bring about "social change" (note Obama's platform slogan of "Hope" and "Change").
Tactics are modeled after those of the late radical sixties activist/author, communist Saul Alinsky of Chicago, Obama's stamping grounds when he was a nebulous "community organizer" on the streets and in the tenements.
The Gamaliel Foundation also labors for civil rights for illegals. It takes a strong stand against immigration restrictions, homeland security measures, the death penalty and the usual litany of radical leftist positions on issues including redistribution of wealth.
Obama worked as a consultant and instructor for the Gamaliel Foundation.
This eye-opening affiliation is nowhere to be seen in the article. Even Obama's close relationship with the Pentagon Bombers is glossed over in one of the prettiest icing jobs I've seen.
We'll be seeing more of these propaganda pieces from those in the Obama media camp.....designed to appear "frank", "hard-hitting", "revealing", "non-partisan" about their hero.
The minor knocks in this article are boosts designed to whitewash and glorify the romantic radical past and Obama's ties to it. New Yawker left-wing, anti-America elites are still fascinated and turned-on about this period of time.
They romanticize about Che, also......and Camelot........and now......
We've seen how Barak has the same hold on people's emotions as he virtually hypnotizes the masses with his speeches.
The Messiah is not upset over this article, you can lay bank to it.
Leni
She thence worked from the "inside" with her lawyering, speechifying and her powers of appointment, etc. as First Lady to a husband in her debt.
All the while, Obama was making his bones as "Mr. Outside", working the streets, building networks of organizations and black liberation churches, making powerful friends, allies and donors, all the while using shoe leather to mine the ghettos and huge Chicago housing projects for votes and reliable voter registrars.
(These are his qualifications for seeking the Presidency, "community activist" is in his resume).
Both Hillary and Hussein continue to do their own things, each in a different way, while still remaining loyal to the same ideology, agenda and outcome....radically changing our Republic by increments into a "village" (i.e.,"community", "commune").
Leni
A friend of mine said yesterday that Obama fills requirements of the anti-christ. I’ve wondered that myself. He’s risen to the top wayyy too fast.
I know some people in the Illinois Republican party that say there’s some stuff that they have from 04 that is just waiting for closer to the election. When Obama forced Jack Ryan out they knew it was hopeless and were just waiting for 2010 to use it. Now the national party has it.
I saw something like that once. Would love to see it.
But the cartoon on the cover is worth a thousand negative words by itself.
Judging by the way the McCain campaign and the RNC has been pulling punches when it comes to criticizing the "Messiah," I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that "stuff" you mentioned to come out.
Timing is everything. If it was something good why do it now when the democrats could still change and get Hillary the nomination? And 4 months out is enough time for it to go away.
I thought she looked like one of the black teachers on “Room 222”
Thanks for posting the cover. That’s a keeper! I think it covers everything on Rush’s list of what we can’t talk about concerning the lord messiah Barack Hussein Obama. What fun!
That’s great news!!!
I say that this magazine cover is going to cost B. Hussein approximately another 1 percent of the votes he would otherwise get.
What say ye? Anybody?
It's difficult for me to see left-liberal snobs being anti-Obama when the beneficiary would be that war-mongering rich Republican, John McCain.
Perhaps they're still holding out hopes for Hillary. The owners being Clinton friends, they may know something last-minute-ish will be revealed.
I can never remember an election so labyrinthical, so much so that I can't wait to get to the computer every morning to see what are the latest bizarre twists and turns.
Leni
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.