The Democratic Convention and Obama
The people in the convention hall cheered every time any speaker said something, whether they understood it or not, just to be in tune with the others. It seemed to me that they tried to show that the stronger the noise, the better the convention would succeed. It felt more like the people were screaming, no matter what the speakers were saying. I wonder if someone had coached them.
When former president Clinton took the podium, it looked like he was competing with Obama or as if he was defending a great client who had paid a hefty fee. Nevertheless, this seemed weird, as I know that the two of them are not on the same wave length. Clinton was excessively praising everything the president did or wanted to do.
Every speaker praised Obama like they wanted to please him or themselves. I have been following the Conventions for many years, since John F. Kennedy and onward. I liked that, and most of my friends were democrats, but since Obama entered the fray, I noticed a change of direction. First he delivered the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention, in Boston, Massachusetts as Illinois State Senator Barack Obama (D).
This was a great idealistic speech with enthusiasm and sincerity, never seen before at a convention and which gave hope that finally, someone would unify the American people, when he said that all ethnic groups are primarily Americans. As I am not born in this country, I was pleased to her this. However, I realized too that since he became president all the beautiful promises and sincerity slowly, slowly faded away and he even became arrogant. The notion that there is no blue state or red state, etc., also changed and it became a fight without consideration for opposite thinking. This disturbed my belief for what he had said at that convention in Boston.
Furthermore, it seemed to me that when Obama had given his speech in Cairo, everyone interpreted it in a different way. At that time, I wrote that in Cairo he wanted to show the Arab people that he is a great pro-Muslim president and I thought that this was a smart move.
I listened to Obama's speech very carefully, as I found it to be excessively eloquent, gracious, and determined, except for a few bumps with regards to the holocaust, which created some problems. I understood that Obama loves America, but in his own way and that he intended to transform it completely and radically, in a way that would not please the majority of Americans.
In reference to Israel, at that time, I realized that Obama either forgot his promises or did not read Jewish history, as he equated the Palestinian problem with the holocaust, forgetting that the Palestinian refugee problem was not created by Israel, but rather by Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Syria and other Arab countries, which together attacked the newly reborn Jewish state in 1948 and encouraged the Palestinian refugee exodus, by ordering them to abandon their houses and their villages until victory, which never came.
In reference to Iran, in one strike, Obama let them continue their nuclear project, by labeling it as if it was for energy only. This clearly showed that from the beginning he did not understand how serious the problem really is for Israel and the Middle East.
As Obama wanted to be the unifier of the world, he forgot that his success depends on unifying first and foremost the United States population, as he promised, and letting the entrepreneurial spirit live in order to create jobs for our unemployed people.
Recently I was appalled when I read what Knesset speaker Reuven Rivlin said to Jerusalem Post, “The fact that Democrats removed a united Jerusalem as Israel's capital from their platform is more worrying than the argument over Iran” and “may have far-reaching consequences” He mentioned that “US President Barack Obama's administration does not understand the realities of the Middle East.” It remains to be seen who gave the order to remove “God” and “Jerusalem” from the democratic platform and who gave the order to put them back.
I hardly believe that it was unintentional, as there was not much difference in volume between the voices of the “yeah”- sayers and those of the “nay”- sayers, which means that there were clear orders from above to put “God” and “Jerusalem” back into the platform, probably in order to sway the Jewish voters. I found this very shocking.