CultureFeast » barak obama

It’s Time for Some Campaigning

Michael Callaway — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 11:23:17 +0000

By Michael Callaway

August 15, 2008

If you have not watch the Jib Jab cartoon it is a must see. Go to www.jibjab.com and click on “Time For Some Campaignin”. Then come back and finish reading this blog.

Satire is always difficult for people to understand, we see this all the time even outside of politics. Bruce Springsteen’s “Born in the USA” is not a patriotic song, and yet it gets played every Fourth of July when the fireworks go off. Billy Idol’s “White Wedding” is not a celebration of marriage, yet it gets played all the time at weddings.

When I wrote my little satire about Bob running for President I know that a lot of people just did not get it. To understand satire you need to know what they are making fun of. One of the reasons that the New Yorker’s cover of with Barack Obama offended some people is that they did not realize who they were making fun of. They were not making fun of Barack Obama, they were making fun of those that fear a black President for no other reason then he is black.

I love the JibJab satire because it makes fun of both candidates in a way that is fair and is truly funny regardless of who you support. One thing I love about American politics is that we have a way of making fun of the most powerful people in our country. Personally I think it has a way of keeping them grounded. Do you think Putin would allow this in Russia or Castro in Cuba? The answer is no.

I think I would rather be depicted as an angry old man then as a guy on a unicorn with butterflies following him around. I think that should be a McCain slogan, “the world is a dangerous place, we need an angry old man to take care of us, not butterflies and unicorns”.

Similar Posts:

I Am Woman

Daniel Dessinger — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 12:18:29 +0000

By Daniel Dessinger

June 6, 2008

Now that Hillary Clinton’s defeat is a foregone conclusion, the media has taken it upon themselves to ask, “Is America too sexist to vote for a woman for president?”

To her credit, Hillary hasn’t been the one to bring this up—yet. However, news organizations have “discovered” that there have been occasions during this campaign that when Hillary’s name is mentioned, it’s often paired with the word that rhymes with witch. The media is the major culprit in doing this, but yet they have the audacity to ponder whether Americans can handle the idea of a female president.
How many of you personally know someone who has said, “I won’t vote for her because she’s a woman?” Undoubtedly, there are a few dolts out there who say this, just as there are a few who say they won’t vote for Obama because he’s black or McCain because he’s too old. But probably the majority of the people you know, the ones you count as your intelligent friends, will vote for one person or the other because of the candidate’s stance on certain issues.

Compare this to the behavior of the talking heads you see on political TV talk shows. Chris Mathews has said on the air Obama “sends a thrill up my leg” and then criticizes Hillary’s hairstyles and outfits in the next segment. On MSNBC there was a promo for a show that promised to take a closer look into the Clinton campaign. It showed an unflattering image of Hillary with contrasted lighting and from a low angle, which emphasized her wattles and wrinkles. If one didn’t know better, one would think it was the work of those dastardly Republicans. Instead, it was done by the “impartial” media. America doesn’t have the problem, the media does.

It’s been my experience that any woman in a position of power has to possess certain qualities that would label her a bitch. A woman who is driven to succeed needs to accept that that is the way the world is going to see her. A female leader has to embrace her bitchiness and tell everyone else that if they have a problem with it, too bad. It’s a sad fact that nice girls don’t get anywhere in this world and a woman has to be a ballbuster to make it to the top.

No matter how you stand politically, you gotta give Hillary props for hanging in there by tips of her fingernails.

Similar Posts:

Take Another Look at the Obama / Clinton Dream Ticket

Michael Callaway — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 11:16:16 +0000

By Michael Callaway

June 5, 2008

You hear a lot of talk about Obama and Clinton as a dream ticket, that Clinton will help Obama win the needed 270 electoral votes needed to be the next President of the United States. Many people will point out that Clinton can help carry women, Latinos and that all important group, hard working white people. Also, she did have over 18 million people vote for her (I was one of them).

It has also been suggested that Obama may not be able to win because there are too many people (of course all in South because that is the only place that is racist) that will not vote for a black man. Personally, if the only reason you are not voting for Obama is because he is black, I would prefer you stay home, we do not need your voice in the mix. I would also say that if your only reason for voting FOR Obama is because he is black you should do the same.

Now I am not sure how many people there are that will base their decision on race. I am hopeful that it is a small enough minority that Barak Obama does not need help with getting the angry white man to vote for him. In my opinion you should not be against Obama because he is black or Clinton because she is a woman, you should be against them because big government programs do not work and that is what both of them want.

If Obama was a small government, low taxes, and strong military candidate then I think he would carry the South and steam roll McCain. As it is, I do not think he will, no matter who his running mate is because his views are very different then what the majority of us in the South believe (last time Texas voted Democrat was 1976 and just barely).

Obama should not take Clinton as his VP choice, his message has been about a new start, change to Washington politics, and bringing people together. Clinton will not be able to do any of those three and will be more help to the Democrat cause as a Senator just like Teddy Kennedy has been.

For me as a Republican it is a dream ticket, it would rattle the sabers of the conservative right and force them to love John McCain. Bubba Clinton will get in the way and it will cause all kinds of off message moments that the campaign would rather not have to deal with. You also know that the Clinton’s are going to want to turn it into a Co-Presidency, three for the price of one. If I were Obama, I would say, “No Deal!”

In 1980 Ronald Reagan faced the same situation; many people wanted him to name Gerry Ford as his VP. Many in the Republican Party were still bitter about Reagan’s challenge to Ford in 1976 and thought it would heal the party and make them more effective against Jimmy Carter. Reagan thought about it for awhile but in the end did not do it for the same reasons Obama should not. Reagan was the nominee, he earned it, he was the one to become President. If Obama is smart he should do as Reagan did, but then again, so should we all.

Similar Posts:

Looking Forward to President Obama

Michael Callaway — Thu, 29 May 2008 17:58:24 +0000

By Michael Callaway

May 29, 2008

I have been asked to envision what an Obama presidency would look like and to give my comment on that. Now, for those of you new to reading my column you may not be aware of this but I am a fairly loyal Republican and I love John McCain. In fact, John McCain is my number one friend on my myspace account even ahead of my wife (this is a short term thing I promise).

Of course, to envision an Obama presidency would mean that I must envision failure on my part to elect my President. I want you to think about asking the Greeks to envision what life would be like if the Trojans had actually won the Trojan war? Maybe ask the ancient citizens of Rome how they would feel if Hannibal had actually sacked their city? Even worse, why not ask Rick Allen, member of the greatest rock and roll band in the world, Def Leppard, how his life would be different if the band would have replaced him as the drummer after he lost his arm in the car accident?

This would be a question that they could not begin to answer because it would have completely disrupted the balance of the world that they knew. However, Michael Callaway can, no, he will, answer this question in a way that is both fair and biased.

First, what a President Obama will not be, he will not be some Islamic Manchurian candidate sent on a secrete mission to convert the United States to Islam. Chances are he will not turn out to be the Anti-Christ and lead the world into seven years of tribulation and he will definitely not destroy the US economy.

On the other hand, President Obama will not be the Mythical seconding coming of JFK and end poverty in this nation and fix all our social issues such as racism and prejudice. Education, healthcare and the environment will not just all of a sudden become great and to borrow a line from Hillary Clinton, a choir of angles will not come down and start singing.

If Obama is lucky and makes the right choices he could be like Harry Truman or FDR, if he is unlucky and makes bad choices he could be Jimmy Carter. I am not against Obama for President because I do not want to see “Yes we can”, I am against him because historically government has not been able to do all things that he has said that he would like to do.

Chances are President Obama will still be involved in a war in Iraq for at least two or three years if not more. President Obama will have to deal with radicals in his own party who will be very angry with him because he could not deliver everything he promised such as renegotiating NAFTA.

On the positive side I believe that a President Obama will help the United States with its image in Europe and among other allies. I think he will have a positive impact on the environment and will increase fuel standards and invest more in alternative fuel choices. I also believe that a President Obama will be much more likely to compromise then President Billary was in 1993 on healthcare reform and may actually get something done.

Now whether or not this is the right approach is hard to say. There are some things that only the government can do, there are some things that only the private sector can do, and then there are tasks that fall in the middle that both government and private sector can do. The tough thing for any President and congress to decide is which tasks are best left to the private sector and which ones can they add value by a private/public partnership.

No one can predict the future, not even the Great Michael Callaway. I remember in 1992 thinking that President elect Bill Clinton was going to ruin the US economy with his tax increase and with the medical leave act. I also was positive in 2000 that President elect George Bush was going to be able to unite Democrats and Republicans for the common good like he did as Governor of Texas. I was wrong on both accounts. However, in the end I believe that the right person who needed to be President at that time is the one who was/is.

While I will do all that is in my power to elect the man that I feel is the best President, in the end I will support him (or her if all hell breaks lose) and wish him the best however it may be. Hopefully President Obama will not be as tragic as if Def Leppard would have abandoned their drummer and got someone else.

Similar Posts:

Obama and Napoleon: Facing Similar Opponents?

Michael Callaway — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 17:34:09 +0000

By Michael Callaway

April 22, 2008

In 1812 Napoleon Bonaparte lead his army on a mission of conquest of Russia. His plan was to take Moscow and winter the harsh Russian winter there. He would then complete his conquest of this giant country the following spring and be the Master of Europe. In 1812 there was no army in the world that could compete against France on land and Russia was no exception.

One thing that Napoleon did not count on was the fighting spirit of the Russians and their ability to suffer. If Napoleon was going to take their country, he was going to wish that he had not. The Russians would rather burn their country to the ground then surrender it to the superior army of Napoleon. So while Napoleon did capture Moscow, there was nothing there, the fields had been burned, the houses had been burned, everything was gone.

Napoleon had his victory, but in the end it was not a victory worth having. Let us fast forward to 2008, Barak Obama is in the middle of a battle for the Democratic nomination. He is articulate, he is charismatic and he appears to be unstoppable. However, Hillary Clinton will not surrender and would be willing to burn it all down rather then give up the fight.

Barak Obama will need to be very careful against dealing with the Clinton political machine. He must be prepared for an adversary who against the self interest of the Party would be willing to burn it all down if it meant not conceding defeat. Let see if history will repeat itself or if there will be a different outcome

Similar Posts:

You Want Some GOP, Yeah You Know Me!

Michael Callaway — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 16:53:00 +0000

By Michael Callaway

February 12, 2008

I have said that you will not get positive campaigns until positive campaigns work. I have just watched the Republican debate in Florida and I must say that I am very impressed with all the candidates. Everyone answered the questions that were presented to them and did not turn ugly on their fellow Republicans. Compare that to a couple of days ago in South Carolina, the Democrats were selling tickets to an ultimate fighting cage match. Three candidates come in, only one walks out!

Again, I am not trying to sway you to become a Republican, I would love to see open and honest debate among all the candidates. While I personally think Hillary Clinton would be more prepared to be President then Barak Obama, I feel like candidate Obama would run a more issue oriented campaign then the Clintons would. While I have a lot of respect for Mrs. Clinton and lack the hate that is so prevalent on my side, she is a classic politician that will tell you what you want to hear. Right now the Left wants out of Iraq so she is saying that she will pull us out of Iraq. However, if she becomes President I can guarantee to you that it will not happen. She will be reading the same military reports that Bush is and while she may do things differently and probably will lower troop levels, she will not pull out altogether. If you are voting for her thinking that she will end the war you are wrong, Nixon did the same thing, twice.

I also think that it is sad when someone like Barak Obama can not say something nice about a Republican President without having his words twisted around. Whether you liked him or not, Ronald Reagan was a transformational leader in a way that Bill Clinton was not. That is not to say that everything that Reagan did was right (99% of it was) and if you are a Democrat I am sure that there are things that you must feel that he did that were wrong. However, in 1979 our military was in a state of disrepair, we had hostages in Iran, the Soviet Union was in Afghanistan and threatening other parts of Europe, inflation and interest rates were through the roof, oil prices were at an all time high when you factor in inflation, Stagflation was the word used to describe the US economy, and their was an overwhelming feeling of despair.

By 1988 all of that had changed, Ronald Reagan was able to change the politics of his day and did bring about a message of hope like Barak Obama said. Reagan had a Democrat House and Senate that he was able to work with and was willing to negotiate with Soviet Union in ways no one dreamed of. So when Obama complemented Reagan he was right to do so, to then take those words and say that he is a Republican, while a huge complement where I come from but is seen as a nasty thing over there in Lefty Land, is just wrong. It is fairer to say that Bill Clinton was a Republican then Barak Obama; he was the one that passed NAFTA, reformed welfare and balanced the budget. Allan Greenspan called Clinton the best Republican President he worked with.

Anyway, I was proud of my GOP last night, I felt like they had an issue driven debate that was civil and at times very funny. I have no illusions that will continue but at least it did last night.

Similar Posts:

Political Momentum for Lemmings

Michael Callaway — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 11:01:43 +0000

By Michael Callaway

January 31, 2008

I understand if you want to vote for Hillary, I understand if you want Barak. I know people who want Mitt and I of course am a fan of Johnny Mac. What I do not understand is someone who wanted to vote for a candidate and then because of the mysterious force known as “momentum” choose to vote for someone else.

I would like to think that just because people in Iowa and New Hampshire think something is a good idea that others will not just blindly follow. This is not a knock on those two States, they take their politics seriously and make thoughtful choices. Every State, every Primary should be that way. When a candidate gets a bounce in the next State’s Primary it shouldn’t be called momentum it should be called the lemming bounce.

Lemmings are a prime example of what momentum really is. One lemming, who just happens to run faster then his brother and sister lemmings, gets out in front of the pack. The others see that he is out in front and think to themselves, “Surely this chap knows where he is going, I think I’ll follow.” Now you have a pack of lemmings all following someone who does not really know where he is going anymore then the other lemmings do, he just happens to be really fast.

In fact, I am sure that the lead lemming must be thinking, “Well I must be going the right way because all of these lemmings are following me. Surely they are not following me for no good reason? I just happen to be in the front because I am really fast.” While speedy gone lemming is pondering these thoughts he falls off a cliff and everyone else goes with him because they do not know better. That is momentum. Voting for the candidate because they won the previous State’s Primary is the lemming bounce.

Similar Posts:

The Importance of Voting

Michael Callaway — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 12:39:21 +0000

By Michael Callaway

January 22, 2008

Iowa and New Hampshire have come and gone, and we have had two completely different results. Mike Huckabee and Barak Obama won the first round; John McCain and Hillary Clinton won the second. What do these results mean to? To me? Voting is a privilege that far too many Americans do not take advantage of, partly because they do not see how it affects their daily lives, and to some degree they are right.

It is highly doubtful that I will vote for Senator Clinton. If she becomes President, my life and, quite honestly, most people’s lives, are not going to change that much. Had Al Gore been elected in 2000, we probably would still be in some type of war in Iraq and terrorists would have still attacked us on September 11th. The mortgage crisis would still be happening and the stock market would still be going down.

It would seem that I am making an argument against voting, which I am not. While your daily life will probably not change overnight regardless of who becomes President, the long-term affects of a President are extremely important. Ronald Reagan believed that the Soviet Union was the Evil Empire; it was not an empire that we could co-exist with or something that we should just accept as a reality; it had to be defeated. Looking back at history, it is obvious that Reagan was right, yet at the time, not everyone believed this to be true. Many people believed that containing the Soviet Union was the best we could hope for. Reagan believed we could eliminate it and that is what we did.

Ideas are important. The President is important. If you are in an early primary state, make sure you vote in that primary. When you vote, vote for someone that you believe in. They do not have to agree with you on every issue. Pick the issues most important to you and go with those. The last thing I want to see is someone vote for a candidate because of a negative commercial, misleading story or because of media-based momentum. Pick what is important to you and stay with it. Like the Bible says, while beauty and charm are misleading and do not last long, character on the other hand lasts a lifetime.

Similar Posts: