Obama as Doctor DOMA (Or: Boy, is that worm turning!)

During the campaign, I mused that the day might come when all the progressive Obots would turn against their former Messiah -- while I, motivated by the imp of the perverse, would have to spring to his defense. The suggestion was facetious. But now I am beginning to think that such a situation may one day occur. Some of the harshest current critiques of our president come from people who had supported him with a vigor that crossed the line into fanaticism.

The prime example would be John Aravosis' AMERICAblog. Aravosis was shocked (as I was not) when the Obama administration filed a brief (in this case) in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act. The brief was not just a matter of legalistic hair-splitting; it used right-wing talking points, comparing homosexuality to incest and pedophilia.

The same issue has outraged Andrew Sullivan. When Sullivan announced his Obot status, the progs welcomed him as a liberal, even though he is actually a libertarian. (At the same time, they smeared Paul Krugman as a conservative, even though he is actually a liberal. 2008 was the Year of Wackiness.) Here's what Sullivan has to say nowadays:

But to file an actual brief re-stating some of the worst and most denigrating arguments against gay civil equality is just bizarre. They could have argued for a narrow ruling or kept the "reasonable" arguments to a minimum. What they did - without any heads up to any of their gay supporters and allies - is unconscionable. Citing incest precedents? Calling gay couples free-loaders? Arguing that our civil rights are not impinged because we can marry someone of the opposite sex? Who on earth decided that that was a great idea?

Uhh...Barack Obama?

Let's check in on Pam's House Blend:

Has your breath been taken away yet? I could not believe what I was reading.

The administration is trying to argue that it is "forced" to defend DOMA as the law of the land, but, as John and Joe explain, this looks like bullsh*t, since prior administrations have declined to defend fed cases of this sort.

And that's one of the nicer things Pam Spaulding has to say about Obama -- now. She sang a very different tune during the primary. Here, for example, she castigates Hillary as a racist:

From a new USA Today interview, she manages to top any dog-whistle race-baiting that her husband put out on the campaign trail with this naked appeal.

Of course, Pam was one of the primary promoters of the RFK smear, which the Obots continued to promulgate even after RFK's son knocked it down. Pam had also smeared Hillary as a gay hater, on the inane grounds that a warm, gay-friendly speech Hillary had given to the Human Rights Campaign ("I am proud to stand by your side") went unmentioned on the Clinton website. Turns out, it was mentioned. The speech was also reported all over the news.

Compare that non-existent "slight" to Obama's equation of gay marriage and incest. Ms. Spaulding, I don't despise you because you are gay. I despise you because you are a hypocrite and a dupe.

Of course, I've dealt with these nonsensical anti-Clinton accusations in the past -- see, for example, here. Neither Hillary nor her husband emitted any "dog whistles." There were none -- zippo, zero, NONE. We all know that the Clintons pay attention to the polls, and all polling data suggest that in the current political environment, any appeal to white racism, even in a Republican primary campaign, would do nothing but damage to a candidate's chances. (I've cited the evidence in past posts.) The Clintons had zero motive to alienate black voters, a bloc which had once far preferred Hillary to Obama. That situation changed only when Team Obama (not Team Hillary) used smear tactics to demonize the opposition.

The entire "dog whistle" accusation was a canard invented by the Obama campaign and seeded by his paid minions throughout the blogosphere. Those who care about objective history should be bold and un-cowed in proclaiming the innocence of the Clintons in this matter. History will vindicate us -- is vindicating, has vindicated. The Obots who still believe in this "dog whistle" nonsense are simply smug, arrogant, pretentious fucks who lack the humility to admit that they were gulled and that they displayed all the independence of thought associated with the torch-wielding mob seen at the end of Frankenstein.

Despite that inability to mutter eight essential words -- "We were wrong about Hillary and we apologize" -- the Obot worm continues to turn and turn.

As riverdaughter (what a writer!) says in her superb riposte to Atrios:

The reason why the 2008 primaries are still important is because the powers that rigged them emerged triumphant. Not only did they rig them and get away with it, they had the support of half of the people they were planning to screw with the continuation of Bush’s policies. Obama has capitulated to the bankers, he’s capitulated to the religious right on gays and women, he’s making no effort to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and he’s become a party to torture.

The left is suffering from a moral sickness. It wanted an outcome so badly that it was willing to sacrifice its own personality and principles to get it. That sickness happened through clever psychological manipulation and unethical behavior on the part of the Obama campaign and its backers. It is deeply rooted in the Democratic Party right now. That party no longer has a foundation built on the working class. It no longer stands for social justice. It serves a new master now.

The left has been torn in half. Our institutions have been bought off. Congress doesn’t have to be accountable to us anymore because they were able to keep their seats by undermining us. And the media, who Big Tent Democrat was content to let have its way, has become stronger than ever because the one candidate who was capable of neutralizing them by virtue of winning in spite of them, was stabbed in the back by her own party.