Page 1 of 1

Obama: A Son of Alinsky?

PostPosted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 1:57 pm
by Phoenix Woman
I think so.

This does not mean that Obama is Saul Alinsky's ideological clone -- far from it. It does means that he's one of the few prominent Democratic politicians who not only understands Alinsky and his methods, but knows how to use them in a political campaign in the modern era.

I started out the 2008 election cycle backing John Edwards, in part because of his stances and in part because early polling showed that he'd do better in the general election against John McCain than either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Unfortunately, Edwards lacked both the machine backing of Hillary Clinton and the amazing organizational skills of Obama. Furthermore, his populist program was unpopular with the millionaire talking heads whose paychecks come from conservative billionaire media moguls, and so he was singled out to be destroyed from the get-go. Edwards is in fact so hated by the GOP/Media Complex that months after his final primary defeat and presumed retirement from politics, if not public life, they went out of their way to dredge up a story about an old affair of his, just to make sure he could never come back. (Adultery, like so many other sins in America, is only allowed if you're a Republican. Just ask Giuliani and McCain and Bob Dole and Newt Gingrich, for starters.)

So, with Edwards out, I decided to support Obama, mainly because the Rasmussen and Gallup polling done in the fall and winter of 2007, as well as early 2008, showed that he was more likely than Senator Clinton to beat John McCain -- who, it was clear from the start, would be the GOP's nominee. I was worried that he might not be able to surmount the racism that I knew would keep the election closer than it deserved to be, but I suspected that it would be easier for him to win than it would be for Hillary, despite everything.

It turns out that Obama may well be the most skilled politician since Lyndon Johnson held court in the Senate. This is in part because of his taking the fine and nearly lost art of political organizing and bringing it into the 21st century.

Re: Obama: A Son of Alinsky?

PostPosted: Sun Oct 26, 2008 9:47 am
by Ferguson Foont
I started out for Biden, then switched to Edwards when Biden dropped out.

It may sound self-serving for me to say it, but I WOULD have been for Obama, whose rhetoric I have admired since I first heard him speak, or Kucinich, with whose policies I agree in almost every regard, if I had thought either had a chance to be elected. Regarding Obama, I will gladly devour a heaping helping of DELICIOUS crow if, on November 4, I discover how wrong I was in my assessment of Obama's electability. I will reserve placing my dinner order until then, however, because I worked with the Doug Wilder campaign in Virginia in 1989 and retain a deep and abiding fear of the "Bradley Effect." Exit polls showed Wilder with a 10 point victory; he wound up beating Coleman by less than a thousand votes, despite the fact that the exit polls were spot on for all the other contests on the ballot.

It is an old adage that you cannot underestimate the intelligence of the American voter. Evidently that saying may finally be obsolete.

Re: Obama: A Son of Alinsky?

PostPosted: Mon Feb 02, 2009 3:10 pm
by kathaksung
582. Robert Gates' career prolonged for Iran war (1/15/08)

Petro dollar benefits US economy a lot. When Iran abandons dollar as oil trading currency, it shakes dollar foundation significantly. To stabilize the dollar position, the war on Iran is inevitable. The latest attempt to war on Iran was failed in August 2008. Next month, in September, a financial crisis is created to save the dollar. The financial crisis push people to change the investment into cash - the dollar, and drives the dollar into a balloon - US bond. The Inside Group will keep that balloon for months, no longer than a year. They will keep that balloon until the Iran war break out.

The reason I said so is out of a decision made by the President elect - Obama. He decides to let Bush's Defense Secretary - Robert Gates to stay in chair for one more year. It means the Inside group still wants to finish Iran war within a year. They maintain that dollar balloon from popping until the war comes.

Robert Gates is a well selected neo-con follower. He is no other than Rumsfeld, Bush and Ashcroft. He has been chosen to command the soured Iran war of 2008 August. No one is more familiar with that war project then him. No one will work better than him with that military official group inside Pentagon which developed the Iran war project. It was an urgent war. If Bush can't stay in President seat, Gates will be the right person to stay for the war.

Barak Obama won the president election by his slogan "change". One important reason he won the campaign is because he said he opposes Iraq war. But when it touches the interest of the Inside Group, he has to obey. In an area where needs an utter "change", he reacts with "un change". He says he opposes Iraq war, because the bird is held in hand already. It doesn't cost anything but a lip service. But when his master gave an order, he will hug another war.

Politicians are picked up from the followers of the Inside Group. High ranking politicians have been all screened tier upon tier. They are all the same even though they pretend to be different by sticking a different sign of donkey or elephant. When people are tired of a white wolf, they gave you a black one. But on the core it's the same. Wolf won't change its habit to eat lamb.

There is a Chinese fable: Three for breakfast and four for super. It says a monkey keeper gave his monkey four nuts in breakfast and three for supper. Monkey felt hungry and protested. The keeper thought for a while than pretended compromise. He said, "OK, you win, I will give you three nuts in morning and four in the evening." Monkey thought it won because the keeper changed three into four for supper. So when Obama gives you four nuts for supper but three in the morning, do you think there is a change?

Re: Obama: A Son of Alinsky?

PostPosted: Fri Jul 09, 2010 4:54 pm
by kathaksung
621. Big plot in later January (1/16/2010)

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, the lone holdover from the Bush administration, will stay on his job for at least another year.

One year ago, I've said that Robert Gates' career prolonged for Iran war, (see #582) and a financial crisis had been created to save the dollar. In that year- 2009, there were two attempts to war on Iran. The first attempt was between April and July, when N.Korea tested the ballistic rockets and nuclear explosion. The second one was in the end of 2009 when Iran was revealed to have a secret nuclear facility in Qum and was given a three months ultimatum. The plan went soured, so the situation goes back to the similarity of early 2009. I would say what I said in #582 is very correct. Robert Gates has to stay for the planed Iran war. The only difference is, in the end of 2008, dollar was strengthened because of the break out of financial crisis. Panicked dollar were driven to the US bond, so the oil price was eased to below $40/barrel. Now it is pushed to $80/barrel to balance the dollar.

To solve the problem, the war on Iran is still inevitable. And you see Gates prolongs his post of Defense Secretary for another time.

The Iran war may break out as early as later January.

I said so based on the following news.

1. Media on January 13, reported that "Responding to a highly sophisticated cyber attack alleged done by Chinese government, Google threatens to exit China."

2. Iranian Cyber Army hit Baidu, China’s Internet search engine, Monday.
New York, January 13 --

Users who visited Baidu’s Web site were confronted with a picture of an Iranian flag and a message, “This site has been hacked by the Iranian Cyber Army."

Big Internet company such like AOL, MSN., all collaborate with the Feds. In order to censor my journal style article "The dark side of USA", they both shut down their important sites of Hometown and community web sites.(see "573. Big operation to censor my message (10/17/08)") Google did same thing.(I'll talk about it later) It's funny when they pretend to be critical on China. US did same thing in covert way.

So when Google and China play a show like this, it may indicate there will be a big cyber attack in the Internet. China may play the role of "alleged hacker". The sites which have my postings will be hacked and my revelation will be lost. Of course, the prerequisite is there would be a framed drug case and I was eliminated.

As for the second news, it was apparently a provocateur case, an effort to suppress China to support Iran in coming Iran war. The two news appear in same day is not a coincidence.

I call it a big plot because besides the war, there may come with a big earthquake. Feds create big events to distract.