Saturday, May 10, 2008
Accomplished! Plus: W and O
Over lunch, I could not stop thinking about the parallels between Dubya and Barry.
Obama is, and Bush was, a politician with an incredibly thin resume.
Both are believers in "crony capitalism" -- that is, patronage and corruption.
Both are creatures of ruthless political fixers -- Rove, Axelrod.
Dubya had thin support outside his base -- fundamentalists, rich conservatives and psychotic Clinton-haters. Obama has thin support outside his base -- blacks, rich liberals and psychotic Clinton-haters.
In both cases, those base supporters evince a disturbingly worshipful attitude toward their candidate.
The Bush campaigns depended on smears and the demonization of any perceived opponents. Both consider any adversary to be "fair game." In fact, in both instances, Valerie Plame Wilson plays/played the role of fair game!
In support of Bush, Rush Limbaugh and the Murdoch crew incited an unthinking mob. In support of Obama, Markos Moulitsas and Air America have incited an unthinking mob.
No parallel is exact, of course. Barack Obama knows something of the outside world; Bush did not. Still, the similarities are uncanny.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Unfortunately I must agree, especially OB and his faithful's tactic of 'claiming a rightful victory' after gaining a slight early advantage even though much uncertainty existed.
Seems it was very early in the primary process that OB, supporters and media were calling for a stop to the process, that Hillary's continued presence threatened to 'harm' Obama.
Shades of FL 2000.
We've had some discussion here about a possible nickname for Obama. I like your suggestion: OB. Rhymes with Job, as in the Book of.
Part of a much longer report:
Unimpeachable sources very close to the Clintons have reported that the morning after the Indiana and North Carolina primaries, calls were made by individuals recognized as high ranking members of the U.S. political elite informing the Clintons that, "while this was not necessarily (their) position,'' they wanted it passed along that under no circumstances would Hillary Clinton be permitted to take the Democratic nomination and that, if by some miscalculation, she did take the nomination, she would never be permitted to take the presidency. Apparently, the messages concluded that if, by some unanticipated occurrence, she were to actually go ahead and win the presidency, it would be the shortest lived presidency in the history of the United States. The message was explicit. The combination of Hillary AND Bill Clinton in the White House meant a presidency that would simply wield more independence and more power than they were willing to tolerate. Undoubtedly, Clinton's continual pledge to represent the lower 80% of the U.S. population, and the unspoken fear that some of her policies seem to lean too far in the direction of the proposals put forward by Lyndon LaRouche, has lowered their toleration level.
The point seemed to be underlined in a none-too-subtle cartoon in the Friday online edition of the London Times. It showed Hillary Clinton laying face down, arms spread, eyes bulging. The American flag is the backdrop, but one of the stars has fallen, its point lodged deep in her back.
Note also widespread, and undisputed, reports that top officials of the Obama campaign have offered to pay off the financially strapped Clinton campaign's $15 million campaign debt as well as the $11.43 million that Clinton has loaned her campaign organization, in return for her shutting down her campaign. The offer comes at the same time that Clinton's finance committee has insisted on a meeting with the candidate next week, in what some believe will be an attempt to force her to withdraw.
The fact is that Obama, despite the fact that his campaign has raised sizeable funds, does NOT have the capability to make good on an offer of that magnitude. A payoff of that size could only be made by the powerful financial forces tied to the City of London that have backed the Obama candidacy. It is a blatant attempt and illegal to shut down Clinton's candidacy and to proceed with a completely orchestrated U.S. election.
http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2008/05/10/obamas-backers-make-their-threat.html
OB 'twas a typo of his initials "BO" but I like OB, too. First 2 letters of his last name. It could also be pronounced "oh bee" as in 'oh bee juan knobi' from Star Wars fame (I have no idea how to spell that)
How dies it feel inside to realize you are standing at the end of the line as a commentator on our political affairs? (Can't even see the satage)
I do realize in your delirious state that you fancy yourself a "prophet" but as the good Word says there shall be many false prophets in the land in the last days.
Repent! before you turn to a pillar of salt.
(dry up and blow away, next stage)
I've been waiting for someone to make that point. In 2000 I called Bush the political equivalent of a corporate boy band, and today I see the same in Obama. I'd like to add to the comparison the theory I take from 8 years of GW Bush that people in power with a similar lack of credentials might have a tendency to rely on their supporters and insiders to such an extent that they become insular and divorced from reality.
Well, I don't know how much light this shines on the crux of the matter. Obama is no W, unless W's failure to even gain admission to the University of Texas' law school is the same as Obama's achieving the position of head of the law review at Yale Law.
Money connections with unsavory types is the rule for successful politicians. This can be called crony capitalism.
And yet you'll find a couple of Democratic presidents of the past who are often judged in the near-great category-- HST and LBJ-- who had significant accomplishments in ofice, yet came out of wholly corrupt electoral environments. Truman's connection with the Pendegast machine was well known, as was Johnson's to Brown and Root. Even the sainted JE Carter had BCCI monies to credit for his success.
One thing Obama has done is to blow out money records with an unprecedented haul from the internet. Hillary's fundraising has been very strong, and would have been dominant except for Obama's huge money raising.
To a great degree, this ability to raise $150 million mainly from the 'net has insulated BHO from the pressures that come from taking large amounts of money from the power money players.
This, and BHO's unique position of nuance for US Middle East policy (among the top tier candidates, not counting Kucinich or Gravel or Ron Paul) give me some hope that a president Obama may yet yield some good policy changes, despite his all-too-common politician's flaws.
For, let's face it, the gay guy's story hasn't gained traction against Obama, nor has the death by gunshot of the Wright church's choir director (allegedly also gay). These were the final matters that could have derailed his gaining the nomination; they haven't worked at all to do anything like that, and it appears to me the guy will surely be the nominee.
....sofla
I let the last anonymous comment go through intentionally. I receive something like that every hour. Sometimes two ro three of 'em come through every hour. Sometimes they are downright threatening.
Judging from the style, only one or two writers have formed this obsessive relationship with this blog.
Perhpas now you can better see why I consider Obots to be cult-like in their behavior?
I delete the things on sight -- blogger shows only the first line, and that is enough for me to get a whiff without forcing me to see the whole message. Still, I've never seen a phenomenon quite like this. Even the trannies were not so crankish.
Sof:
I'm sure you understand that I did not intend an exact parallel. There are no exact parallels to be had in the political universe.
There are many differences between the two men. The most obvious one: Obama is much smarter -- and a somewhat better orator -- than Bush is.
Also, Obi comes from a political machine, whereas the Bush family is a family. Well, at what point does a political family turn into a political machine...?
I'll tell you one thing they have in common: They both give me the creepy feeling that someone else is pulling the strings. That's just a feeling, and I suppose I should not mention such things without better evidence.
There's also the matter of religion. I feel safe in saying that Obi probably is not very religious, but has decided , for political purposes, that Christianity is the best image. Well, I can't get mad at that -- I'm sure that the same can be said of most other pols.
But can it be said of Bush?
For nearly eight years now, I've been wondering whether his piety was feigned, or if he really is as fanatical as he seems. And after all this time, I still don't know!
LBJ was a rotten president.
Truman? I'd like to say tht he was a good man -- but then this blog really would start to read like Rorshach's journal.
"They both give me the creepy feeling that someone else is pulling the strings..."
Well, there seem to be a significant number of intelligent people who suspect that. The presidency seems to be vaguely conceived of by most people as a kind of one-man (sorry) operation, whereas it is made up of at least his (again) advisers, official and not, and even his family and others who can get his ear or fear.
Obi and the shrub both have weak character and lack principles upon which to stand, thus they are easily influenced or manipulated. The people allowed to influence them are limited, even controlled. But they may or may not be invisible, to varying degrees by the observing public.
At the start of his presidency, it looked like a strong controlling string (principle, even?) of Bush was his religious faith. I seem to recall an ecumenical prayer meeting at the start of his first term. Over time, or rather suddenly, that string apparently snapped. The neocons, no?
Jumping to Obama, we've got what? The Chicago machine? The beautiful team running his campaign? The neocons have no connection? I consider the latter very unlikely, even though he's promoted as organic produce. But how to prove it?
CATO?
Ayers, Dorhn?
Funding?
Advisers?
Sneeky promotion by recognized neocons?
Oh, wait. He is not intended to become president. He will never make it through the McCain-whoever race after he is coronated!
So why compare him with an president, who actually sat in the oval office? Obi was only vetted to be a candidate to win the Democratic nomination.
All I know is that MI6 and the colonial office (in their various incarnations) have been practicing this stuff for an awfully long time, and in the end, they have been doing the work to the benefit of the supranational financial cartels.
Unfortunately, you can't prove there is a dead rat under the floorboards until you pull some nails and expose it. But the stink can get pretty strong before then.
LBJ was a rotten man, but also a good president, at least judging by the fruits of his administration.
Besides the Civil Rights Act, he passed both Medicare and Medicaid, the food stamps program, and together, his programs took the elderly from the highest rate of poverty of any group to the lowest rate of poverty of any group.
We need more of such 'rotten' presidents.
...sofla
Post a Comment