Obama is losing traction based on his "snobbish" remarks about guns, God, and working class voters. Am I happy? Nope. I happen to agree with some (though not all) of what he said on that occasion.
I'd much prefer for Obama to lose on other grounds -- such as the fact that he's a liar, he's crooked, he's a hypocrite, he's a plagiarist, he's a racist-baiter, he's a dis-uniter, he's a danger to Social Security, and he's the focal point of a repellent Mao-like cult of personality.
As Professor Fate might have put it, the important thing is not to win, but to win on your own terms. The videos embedded on this site indicate my terms: They show what I consider to be grounds for genuine debate.
One aspect of Obama's controversial commentary bugged the crap out of me...
And they [working class voters] fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.There you have it: Obama repeats the progcrap Big Lie about how the '90s were the Nightmare Years. There was no real difference between Clinton and Bush, or sayeth the Obamabots.
Obama's charge simply isn't true. Here's the data.
Some of us would not mind re-living that particular nightmare, thank you very much. And if Obama's team -- Austen "Cato Institute" Goolsbee and Jeff "Libertarian" Liebman and Markos "Ayn-droid" Moulitsas have their way, we'll be tossed into a genuine nightmare, one which will make the Dubya years look like a golden age. Just as only a Nixon could go to China, only an Obama can render Social Security insecure.
Obama's slimeball attacks on Bill Clinton's legacy exemplify the reason why this former Obama-supporter and charter member of the Anyone-But-Hillary club switched allegiances.
No doubt, some of my beloved readers will make the argument that the Clinton years really were the Nightmare Years. If you're clever, you can make a strained argument in favor of any proposition, however loopy that proposition may be. As November segues into December, as McCain chooses his cabinet, the people who enjoy that sort of strained argumentation will be asking themselves: "Gee, why didn't the Clinton voters come out to support Obama? All we did was insult them and lie about them continually...."
Which brings us to the most egregious piece ever published in the New York Review of Books: Elizabeth Drew's Molehill Politics. This article translates Kos-style progshit into intellectually respectable argot. Yes, Drew even tries to convince us that Hillary is a racist. (This was the lie that had me screaming "I've had all I can stands, and I can't stands no more!")
Drew accuses the Clintons of using a "kitchen sink" strategy, even though anyone who has glanced at the Obamablogs (TPM, Kos, Huffington Post) knows that they have tossed not just the sink but the plumbing, the garbage disposal, and the septic tank.
Drew refers to Obama as the "presumed neophyte." "Presumed"? The only Republican this guy has ever run against was Alan Keyes, who is about as popular in Illinois as head lice.
Obama has managed to win against the other Dems only by racist-baiting and guilt-tripping -- by finding all sorts of subtle and not-so-subtle ways to convey the message:'You don't like me? Obviously, you hate blacks...' He has used his surrogates on the progblogs to swiftboat his opponent. Such tactics may have put him ahead in the primaries, but they will not work in the general. Republicans are incapable of feeling guilt, and they invented swiftboating. Centrists will be repulsed, not converted, if the Obamabots try the trick of scrying racism into McCain's every utterance. Meanwhile, the Clinton supporters, having been decried as bigots or bigot enablers, simply won't show up to support the guy who insulted them.
Two quotes from Drew's piece exemplify her strategic blind spot:
Obama has a big idea: he believes that in order to change Washington and to get some of those ten-point programs through, and to reduce the power of the lobbies and "special interests," he must first build a large coalition—Democrats, independents, Republicans, whoever—to support him in his effort to change things.A little later, she writes:
This election is dividing friends and families like no other I've seen.Do I need to point out the problem here? If Obama arouses such loathing among Democrats, how can he hope to build the inter-party coalition he's been blathering about since 2004?
Drew takes Clinton to task for engaging in negative campaigning, which is -- yes, I'll use the simile again -- like Germany claiming to have been invaded by Poland. I've been following politics since the early 1970s, and the anti-Clinton mob mentality engendered on Kos and DU stands outside anything in my previous experience.
The progblogs speak to an audience exceeding that of cable news, and we now know that they coordinate their disgusting smear attacks with the Obama campaign. This investigation establishes that point beyond rational debate. By making the online media an integral part of his efforts, Obama has managed to make the Bosnia flap seem like the most important lie of all time, while his own flagrant fibs stand unchallenged.
What kind of fibs am I talking about? Well, I've dealt with his Iraq lies at great length. To recap: Obama says that he has been a consistent opponent of the war, even though he opposed Russ Feingold's call for withdrawal and voted to fund the conflict.
Moreover, Obama says that he vociferously opposed the war during his 2004 campaign, and that he did so at great political risk. In fact, he made only two recorded anti-war statements during the 2004 primary, in which his opponents were Democrats with stronger anti-war stances. In the general election against Keyes, and during his convention speech, he would not criticize the invasion at all. Political risk? Hardly!
There are plenty of other Obama lies, starting with his pledge not to run for president in 2008. For now, let's take note of this fib, made in a recent commercial:
“I don’t take money from oil companies.”He is implying that Hillary does. In fact, the law forbids corporations from donating to any federal candidate. Obama's campaign has taken hundreds of thousands of dollars from various individuals in the oil industry.
At least Drew isn't as bad as Arianna Huffington. Every time her site publishes a piece calling Hillary Clinton "calculating" and "ambitious" and "willing to do anything to win," I want to scream. Arianna has a certain expertise when it comes to ambition and calculation. A dozen years ago in Santa Barbara, a limerick was born...
There once was a girl named Stassinopoulos
Who wanted to rule the U.S. populace
But she wasn't born here
so she married a...
Hmm. Maybe I had best not finish that poem. Back to our story...
I don't know if Clinton can win against McCain -- frankly, I doubt it -- but what chance does Obama stand?
What’s more, our conversations with Democrats who speak to the Clintons make plain that their public comments are only the palest version of what they really believe: that if Obama is the nominee, a likely Democratic victory would turn to a near-certain defeat.
Far from a no-holds-barred affair, the Democratic contest has been an exercise in self-censorship.
Rip off the duct tape and here is what they would say: Obama has serious problems with Jewish voters (goodbye Florida), working-class whites (goodbye Ohio) and Hispanics (goodbye, New Mexico).
Republicans will also ruthlessly exploit openings that Clinton — in the genteel confines of an intraparty contest — never could. Top targets: Obama’s radioactive personal associations, his liberal ideology, his exotic life story, his coolly academic and elitist style.
The last two Democratic nominees, Al Gore and John F. Kerry, were both military veterans, and both had been familiar, highly successful figures in national politics for more than two decades by the time they ran.Like it or not, the only candidate who has ever managed to withstand everything the "freak show" could toss at him was Bill Clinton.
Both men lost control of their public images to the right-wing freak show — that network of operatives and commentators working mostly outside of the mainstream media — and ultimately lost their elections as many voters came to see them as elitist, out-of-touch, phony, and even unpatriotic.
Obama is a much less familiar figure than Kerry or Gore, with a life story that is far more exotic, who is coming out of a political milieu in Chicago politics that is far more liberal.
The freak show has already signaled its early lines of attack on Obama.
Obama? Not a chance.
24 comments:
It’s a fight for the minds of the “working-class voters” or the disenfranchised lower 80% plus of citizens. The post-FDR, anti-FDR policies, deregulated, “post-industrial,” floating exchange rate monetary-financial system is disintegrating.
That reality affects the “working-class voters” more than those who wall themselves in their “still-well-off” comfort zones. We have MILLIONS of families threatened with loss of their homes. We have spreading food shortages. Not to mention the seemingly limitless list of horrors accompanying years of a GWB-Dick Cheney presidency.
The working-class voters might elect someone who could lead the nation to employ the only real solutions to this crisis—FDR / American System solutions. The only possibility is Hillary Clinton. Obama is BEING USED to shoot her down.
So now those retards—bastard sons of the same impulse which brought us WWI, WWII and the cold war (not to mention a long list of other horrors worldwide) have Obama and his well-controlled robots appealing to the huge mass of voters who are catching on to the things many of us have seen for a long time AND catching on to the fact we are facing VERY DEEP SHIT.
I am a citizen of late Weimar Germany standing in the street trying to alert my fellow citizens to the impending horrors and being regarded as insanely overreacting. But an important difference is that WE CAN STILL TURN THIS AROUND. The answers are to be found here:
www.larouchepac.com Dig around, watch some videos, look at the organizing materials.
These young people are working 24/7, or at least six days a week, 16 hours a day, organizing on the streets and campuses, within the Democratic Party, in city councils and state legislatures and in the halls of Congress to set us back on the road to something resembling civilized life.
Our world will appear very different before the November elections. It will really, really appear different in January and February of next year.
For better worse depends on the choices we make now.
Gary McGowan
(Thank you, Joseph, for allowing me my say in your home here.)
Joe,
Context is all.
Obama dissed working class white culture while shilling for money on BILLIONAIRE'S ROW. ("They" love guns and God - how stupid of "them.")
What an oaf. What a tin ear.
If he had said the same things before a crowd in a depressed PA town, it would have been totally different. ("You" are disenfranchised by globalization, and "I feel your pain.")
See the difference?
Also, do only whites get to be bitter God-freaks? How about some of the folks who go to Trinity United Church?
j...that last sentence was GENIUS.
Damn, but you're right. For Obama to accuse anyone else of bitterness is like...
Well, it's like Arianna accusing Hillary of being ambitious.
Well, thanks, and further to that last sentence:
Another thing that bothers me about this whole business is the obvious double standard between black rage and white rage.
In Obama-speak, white rage is centered on the working class and derives from a misunderstanding of the real causes of their disenfranchisement. In other words, it’s what us former campus radicals used to call “false consciousness.”
Black rage, on the other hand, is justified on its own merits and morally pure. Don’t believe me? Where in Barack’s rambling speech on race, or in his book (have you read it?) has he ever intimated that black rage is false consciousness? No: he continually explains and justifies black rage as legitimate and authentic.
At the risk of being repetitive, and to anticipate disagreement, there is a difference between authenticity and genuineness. You can be genuine (as in the working-class white god-lovin’ gay-hatin’ hunter) but not authentic. Being authentic encompasses being genuine.
In Obama-world, whites can be genuine, but are not authentic. Blacks are authentic.
If you don’t believe me, read his book.
Who is Larry Johnson and why does he call everyone "Brother"?
Anyway, he has an active imagination and less than logical reasoning.
First of all, why the hell didn't Gore run? He was always my first choice. I still say Obama will win but it is possible that the Republicans will be able to scare the American people away from voting for the scary muslim extremist terrorist-supporting black man.
It just occurred to me that I have seen at least two occasions (commenters on DU and I can't remember the other site) of the same exact argument that GMC has presented here (Clinton, the only winning campaign of recent years...) being made.
Does that constitute a conspiracy?
By Larry Johnson's logic, Joe and GMC and others are part of a vast effort to fool people into thinking that they are independent citizens who agree with each other, but the truth is that they are all puppets manipulated by some behind the scene person/group.
And if "smear in the primaries " is crossing the line, what is "McCain and I have passed the test of Commander in Chief" and "The Elitist Democrats" argument?
And if Obama did it first and now "She" has to retaliate, then what happens to Joe's argument that Democrats should not engage in the same tactics as Republican even if that means losing?
I am perfectly willing to be open minded about Obama, but so far...
beeta, the manufactured brouhaha over the "Commander in Chief" things is precisely what started to turn my friend against Obama. (For me, it was the "Hillary the racist" meme.)
The point Hillary was making was perfectly valid: The public will perceive McCain as having credentials on National Security matters. Will the public similarly view Obama?
The progs spun this valid question into "Hillary says that McCain wold make a better president."
That is precisely the sort of hyperbolic, inane smear that makes people view the Obamabots as cultists.
The comment about elitist Demcrats is fair self-criticism -- and, in my view, entirely justified. I've made the same point many times.
All the little progs are so caught up in their insular progworld that they have no longer have any idea of how to talk to the mythical figure we used to call Joe Sixpack.
(Of course, the same principle works in the other direction. The fundies are so caught up in THEIR world that they have no idea how to talk to anyone outside their cult...)
Gary: You want Gore to run? But...he was a co-founder of the...
(GASP!)
D...
(SHUDDER!)
L...
(AIEEE!!)
C!!!!
Thank you Joe!
It is true that people are bitter and that the Republicans have used religion and guns and abortion to sidetrack them from their economic woes. It is true that bad economic times have caused people to blame immigrants (let's not blame NAFTA or corporations that want the cheap labor-sidetrack-bait and switch tactics) and that there is some animosity between Blacks and Hispanics stemming from the same economic issues and it has been exploited by both parties. IT is true that Republican have created "Values Voters" to give them some sense of integrity while they are watching their American Dream fade away.
Perfectly legitimate argument!
Did he say it in the best possible way?
No.
Did Hillary present the idea of McCain's military experience( a plus)versus Obama's lack of with finesse?
Hadley.
Did she need to bring up Gore and Kerry as elitists who couldn't muster enough "respect" (her term) from American people and lost (Gore won)?
I think not (and GOOD LUCK getting Gore's endorsement EVER).
Can Hillary win in November when she has managed to piss the hell out of Gore and Kerry and Kennedy and Richardson and the Black community and the anti war crowd....
I am very skeptical (although I look forward to watching her pull the rabbit out of the hat).
She did not piss off the black community. A fake Hillary was erected by the progblogs. Obama could not have succeeded without that Big Lie.
Gore's refusal to endorse is, in a sense, an endorsement of Clinton. He and Edwards could end the struggle now, in Obama's favor, if they wanted to. But Obama alienated them.
On the other hand, I think he sees an outright endorsement of Hillary as a move that would divide the party without securing a nominee.
I think the New Scotsman story that you probably want to bring up right now is in error. In fact, I think it is smply a bad piece of reporting.
And exactly when did Hillary denounce Gore and Kerry as elitist?
The actual words:
“Democrats have reached out to me to say that we can’t afford for people to believe that the Democratic Party is elitist and out of touch. Because honestly, how do we expect people to listen to us if we don’t hear them and we don’t respect their values and their way of life?"
That is pretty much exactly what she should have said in response to the Obama gaffe. Nothing in there about Gore or Edwards.
beeta, you have GOT to stop taking the progblogs seriously. I know how they spin this shit. They have you hallucinating things that Hillary never actually said. They probably have you thinking that Hillary dissed Gore, and she just didn't.
In other news, Bush finally admits knowledge and approval of torture. But, nevermind that. Let's start talking about the strife between Hillary and Obama over hair styles next. ;)
Wow. Just...wow. I hereby nominate this article for the Pot Kettle Black Award of the day. On the lying, the crookedness, the kitchen sink, the dis-unity (this race is OVER, for Koresh's sake), slimeball attacks on Bill? At least you didn't say "desperate," then I would have spit all over my keyboard in laughter.
"'And they [working class voters] fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.'
"There you have it: Obama repeats the progcrap Big Lie about how the '90s were the Nightmare Years."
Sounds like precisely the kind of spin you accuse the progblogs of doing. I don't see where he said they 90's were the Nightmare Years. I do, however, see that, like he said, these communities have not regenerated. So, where are those jobs of the 90's? Were they well-paid, middle-class jobs? Did rural towns get left behind on their own accord? Or did the chasm between rich and poor continue widening during those years just like it has since the 70's? Did the job growth of the 90's really help anyone outside the top 1% or did it provide more McJobs for the overemployed at the bottom?
And if I and Obama are wrong, they why doesn't Hillary point it out herself? If she were running a good campaign, you'd think she would figure out how to seize upon any of these dreadful, slimeball lies that Obama got yer knickers all tangled up. It must be a shock to the system to watch a politician speak and not hear the echoes of the focus groups or the Mark Penns.
Obama's only beaten Alan Keyes? Then why can't Hillary beat him? Or McCain?
"Gee, why didn't the Clinton voters come out to support Obama? All we did was insult them and lie about them continually...."
Again, a very nice moment of projection.
"Like it or not, the only candidate who has ever managed to withstand everything the "freak show" could toss at him was Bill Clinton."
Then let's call Ross Perot and get his butt in the race so we can seal this deal.
Switching from Obama to Hillary because of hypocrisy, disunity, or lying is like switching from Starbuck's to Sanka because you think Sanka has a more authentic flavor, a better reputation, and the best chance to win a taste test.
Or maybe you prefer orange juice?
Yeah, jenius, the jobs did start to come back -- in PA and elsewhere. Not fast enough, but if you will recall, BC came into office battling the crippling deficits run up by Bush I and Reagan. I never expected him to do as well as he did.
But why argue with you? Anyone who can defend Obama's indefensible remark is so committed to The Savior as to make argument irrelevant. He really has become a Rorshach blot onto which progs have projected all their impossible hopes.
And the absurd thing, he is no progressive. He's a Libertarian. You really think he's going to go after the free traders -- the guy who is bringing Goolsbee and Liebman with him into office?
I'll soon be arguing that the progressive wing of the Democraic party has become the new tool for Libertarianism. I was too blind to see it until now. But when you look at the backgrounds of Moulitsas and Huffington, as well as Obaam's economics team, the idea starts to make sense.
"Obama's only beaten Alan Keyes? Then why can't Hillary beat him? Or McCain?"
He hasn't beaten McCain. He's NOT beating McCain in the polls, and the conservative media have not yet gone after him in a big way.
I explain in my piece, and above, why he has prevailed in the primaries to the extent that he has. He has media cronies with even fewer ethical constraints than Fox News in his pocket, pushing daily smears into the minds of the gullible.
The fact is -- the only Republican opponent Obama has ever faced was Alan Keyes. You sneer at me for saying that, but you cannot deny it, because it is true.
And there's this:
Former CIA counterterrorism official Larry Johnson is quoted in the London's Sunday Times as saying:
"They're going to kill him with this. The guy is an unrepentant terrorist, so please, Barack Obama, explain why you aligned yourself with him. It is a fundamental question of judgment. By the time he [Obama] was hanging around with Ayers, his position was well known. He [Ayers] was not a freedom fighter; he belonged to a violent terrorist group."
Obama is UNELECTABLE. He's being used to bump Hillary. Let's see now... no Hillary, no Obama, Where does that leave us?
Gary McGowan
GMC,
S-- T-- F--- U---
or have the guts to answer Q's that are asked of you!
And if you think you are safe in Joe's shadow....think again...
if you are as nasty as you seem to be.... he'll see right thru you.
Pad your ASS buddy, soon you will need it!!!!!!!!!!
No fighting. Please.
As Patton used to say (if memory serves), there's room for only one prima donna in this army.
beeta,
Questions? If you can tell me where they are or what they are, I'd be happy to address them best as I can.
Gary McGowan
(When I try to use my Google or OpenID they'll have me posting as "Gary," and since there was a Gary here long before me I don't want to do that. "Name /URL" option looks like top of this comment. It doesn't recognize uppercase.)
Gary McGowan
Holy shit.
I'm getting so sick of writing my name in the bottom of every comment, and now I see from my comment above it can appear down where it belongs.
Wouldn't know it from the preview of this, which has a big dark black "gary mcgowan said" at the top.
(Crossing my fingers that I'm not making a fool of myself as I carve this irrevocably in digital stone. I'm not writing my name at the bottom of this, but I expect the Name/URL option, where I have entered my name, and no URL, to do the job...)
Post a Comment