Obama is a Ward Politician Masked as Presidential Caliber

Today's media-driven politics has eclipsed machine-driven politics, such as were prevalent in Chicago, Boston and New York in the 60's. This was obvious because It became increasingly difficult to get into homes and apartments to talk about candidates. High-rises were tough if not impossible to campaign, and other parts of cities had become too dangerous to walk around in for hours at a time.
Because people didn’t want to answer their doors, political candidate became increasing dependent on TV, radio, direct mail, phone-banking,and robocalls.

These new campaign methods cost a lot more money than patronage workers, who were themselves in decline,because of anti-patronage court rulings. Instead of a large army of ward heelers dragging people to the polls, candidates need a small army of donors to pay for commercials. Money replaced bodies as the currency of big city 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.All the more reason why this Country needs term limits for all elected positions. If it is good for the President. Why not for Senators and Congress persons?


E. J. Dionne, Jr., of the Washington Post, wrote about Obama's Change(aka), transition in a 1999 column after Daley was reelected. 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 reelection. “They do well, and you get a $5 million to $10 million war chest,” Obama told Dionne. It was a classic Obamaism: superficially critical of some unseemly aspect of the political process without necessarily forswearing the practice itself. Obama was learning that one of the greatest skills a politician can possess is candor about the dirty work it takes to get and stay elected.

In a perfect example of the "Change" Obama's willing to make in his own positions to satisfy his thirst for power. During his U.S.Senate campaign, Mr. Obama joined in a “Walk for Israel” rally along Lake Michigan on Israel Solidarity Day. The Crowns and other Jewish leaders raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for him. Several days before the primary in 2004, some of his Jewish supporters took offense that Mr. Obama had not taken the opportunity on a campaign questionnaire to denounce Yasir Arafat, the leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization, or to strongly support Israel’s building of a security fence.
But in a sign of how far Mr. Obama had come in his coalition-building, friends from the American Israel Political Action Committee, the national pro-Israel lobbying group, helped him rush out a response to smooth over the flap.
In an e-mail message, Mr. Obama blamed a staff member for the oversight, and expressed the hope that “none of this has raised any questions on your part regarding my fundamental commitment to Israel’s security.” Mr.Ali Abunimah has written of running into the candidate around that time and has said that Mr. Obama told him: “I’m sorry I haven’t said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I’m hoping that when things calm down I can be more upfront.”

Abunimah emphasizes that no partition is ever going to be acceptable to a majority of Israelis and Palestinians (e.g., few Palestinians in the occupied territories would accept Israeli annexation of even the largest Israeli settlement villages
The Obama camp has denied Mr. Abunimah’s account. Mr. Khalidi, who is now the director of the Middle East Institute at Columbia University, said, “I’m unhappy about the positions he’s taken, but I can’t say I’m terribly disappointed.” He added: “People think he’s a saint. He’s not. He’s a politician.”


In another example of Obama tepid patriotism, was his reaction to the dastardly attack 9/11/01. It was luke warm at best. He conclude with words that betray his internationalist philosophy as apposed to a true patriot like McCain.
"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".source: The New Yorker

You will notice that there is not one word about religious zealotry or fanaticism in his explanation of why this attack happened!

Like many politicians, Obama is paradoxical. He is by nature an incrementalist, yet he has laid out an ambitious first-term agenda (energy independence, universal health care, withdrawal from Iraq). He campaigns on reforming a broken political process, yet he has always played politics by the rules as they exist, not as he would like them to exist. He runs as an outsider, but he has succeeded by mastering the inside game. He is ideologically a man of the left, but at times he has been genuinely deferential to core philosophical insights of the Right!

Another sign of Obama's deceptiveness is the way he has had a unwillingness to condemn the corruption scandals in Illinois, ensnaring Daley and Blagojevich, both of whom he supported for reelection. Do people want this man to be our president?