Month: October 2008

This October 7th article in the (Wilkes-Barre) Times-Leader follows up Shelly Mandell’s endorsement of McCain-Palin.

Dem group backing McCain
Prominent Hillary Clinton supporter helps open Democrats for McCain headquarters in Scranton.
BILL O ’ BOYLE
SCRANTON – A major supporter of Hillary Clinton and member of the Democratic National Committee’s
Platform Committee, on Monday said the Democratic Party has nominated “the worst candidate” while
Republicans have nominated the best.
Lynn Forester de Rothschild helped open the Democrats for McCain headquarters on Main Avenue in West Scranton. About 30 supporters turned out to welcome de Rothschild and speak out for the Republican ticket.

Although I read the about the de Rothchild endorsement of McCain, I didn’t post about it at the time. What surprised me was this statement:

One organization – PUMA, which stands for Party Unity My Ass – has more than 5 million members across the country, she said. Jamie Brazil, a longtime friend of the Clintons and the Rodham family, is serving as national director of Citizens for McCain. Brazil accompanied de Rothschild on her Scranton visit.

Five. Million. Members.
Despite the size of this group and these high profile Clinton-Democratic defections, today’s Wall Street Journal minimizes this movement, even as it briefly mentions de Rothschild.
de Rothschild also spoke to veterans in Fenton, MI regarding her support for McCain. What is striking to me is where de Rothschild is going. These are small venues and small media markets, which indicates to me that her support is sincere and strong.

The margin of error is 2.8%…

Differences on many issues were clear in the debate tonight.
The three issues which stood out to me involved McCain’s plan to directly assist troubled mortgage holders, tax policy and Israel.
Question 13 on Israel was striking to me. If Israel was attacked, would the candidate commit troops to support Israel? McCain was clear that we would defend Israel. I am not sure what Obama would do based on his answer; he said he would not options off the table but he would also sit down with the Iranian president.
For readers who are keen on how the candidates stand toward Israel, I am interested in your reactions. I was surprised when Obama said this:

Now, it is true, though, that I believe that we should have direct talks — not just with our friends, but also with our enemies — to deliver a tough, direct message to Iran that, if you don’t change your behavior, then there will be dire consequences. If you do change your behavior, then it is possible for you to re-join the community of nations. Now, it may not work. But one of the things we’ve learned is, is that when we take that approach, whether it’s in North Korea or in Iran, then we have a better chance at better outcomes.

In the context of the question of whether Israel could count on US support, I think this answer might raise concerns that an Obama administration would not be a ready ally in the face of aggression toward Israel.

As always, I am very interested in hearing from readers about why this does or doesn’t matter. The CNN report makes it clear that Obama wants to minimize the actual relationship. I think this mostly goes away if Obama said somthing like, I made a mistake in hitching my wagon to this guy and moved away from him when I realized what he did and what he stood for. However, as documented by this report, his campaign has fudged a bit on the extent of the connection. Roll the tape:

I think this information is relevant, not because I think Obama is a closet terrorist, but because an analysis of his record reveals something of his political philosophy now. Some of the people who advise him today are those who have advised him since those days (e.g., Penny Pritzker, who advises him on finance but also is on the board of the Chicago Public Education Fund. The CPEF is the successor to the Annenberg Challenge which was initiated by Bill Ayers and chaired by Obama). The Ayers connection does not mean Obama supports revolution but it might say something about the types of reforms and education policies he might promote as President.
UPDATE: The Obama campaign is now denying that Obama launched his political career in Ayers home. This may be parsing words (what does “begin” mean?). However, the CNN report places him there and indicates that witnesses characterized it as his “coming out party.”

Researching Barack Obama’s philosophical influences, I came across an article called Obamanomics by David Moberg and published in the left-leaning, In These Times.
The March, 2008 article is worth a read in light of the current economic troubles. Moberg predicts the current crisis and discusses Obama’s position regarding the financial industry at that time:

Subprime plans
When it comes to many of the larger issues hounding the economy, Obama hasn’t done much to distinguish himself. He has not been a visionary on the subprime crisis, and his adviser Goolsbee indicated in a New York Times column that the only problem is the rampant fraud that was an integral part of subprime lending. In his proposal to deal with the subprime mortgage debacle, Obama does not support the foreclosure moratorium and interest rate freeze that Clinton and many citizen and labor groups advocate.
But Dean Baker, co-director of the Center on Economic and Policy Research and an early forecaster of housing bubble problems, argues that Obama’s plan is admirable because it is less of a bank bailout than Clinton’s. The problem now, he points out, is not so much the interest rates that are resetting at a higher level, but that the value of people’s houses has declined to less than what they initially paid. Baker advocates guaranteeing people facing foreclosure an option to rent their homes at fair market value. This would avoid many evictions and pressure banks to work out more favorable mortgage agreements.
Obama’s main flaw seems to be excessive caution, not favoritism to the financial services industry, which has contributed almost as much to him as it has to Clinton. But Obama is not beyond influence.
Obama’s national finance chair is Penny Pritzker. Chicago’s wealthy Pritzker family owned half of Superior Bank, a pioneer in subprime lending. When the bank failed in 2001, the family signed a sweetheart deal with federal regulators that let it off with a profit while many depositors lost money. (But Penny’s brother, J.B. Pritzker, is a major Clinton supporter.)
And for years, executives of Exelon, the Illinois-based nuclear utility, have been among Obama’s biggest contributors. (Obama insists nuclear power should not be ruled out as a potential energy source, even if he also promotes alternatives.)

There are many culprits in the current financial melt-down. However, I am puzzled that Obama is viewed by the general public as better able to handle the economy than McCain.
The Pritzker connection seems troubling. Given her experience with subprime lending, I wonder why she was not sounding the alarm.