Remember this cartoon, published during the general election campaign? It takes on rather interesting overtones when viewed today.One can say that Obama really didn't lie, at least not after he had secured the nomination of his party.
Why, then, are the progs screaming about betrayal? Because they had projected so much onto him, the way we scry images into clouds and Rorschach blots.
This is one of the most interesting sociological developments I've ever witnessed.
6 comments:
Well, as I said over at Violet's a couple of days ago:
FWIW, I think Tabibi is wrong. Obama didn’t deceive anyone about his intentions. He said he wanted to give insurance companies “a seat at the table”, and he is (okay he didn’t say “the only seat at the table”, but that’s just nit-picking). He said he would send more troops to Afghanistan, and he is. If you’re disappointed in Obama, then you just weren’t paying attention. If you looked at his legislative record, you would have seen a cautious, fairly conservative careerist politician with no discernible principles and no interest whatsoever in disrupting the corporate gravy train. I’m not disappointed at all - I expected four more years of Bush and that’s exactly what I’m getting.
I don’t see how any rational person could’ve expected Obama to do anything about DOMA or DADT - we are after all talking about a politician who refused to be photographed with Gavin Newsome (the straight mayor of San Francisco), wouldn’t be caught dead within 90 miles of a Pride parade, and toured with “ex-gay” raging homophobe Donnie McClurkin.
And women’s issues? After the way his campaign savaged both Clinton and Palin? After he voted “present” on every major Illinois vote on reproductive rights? Be serious.
I just haven’t got a single molecule of sympathy for all those Betrayed Progressives ™. Not one. To hell with the lot of ‘em.
Of course Obama deliberately lied. Not about everything, of course, but he had to lie about enough things that were important to the faux progressives and uninformed voters to get him across the finish line.
Look, Hillary had the traditional Dems locked up, so first the Obama campaign needed to smear Hillary as a r*cist, because he desperately needed every*single*black*vote in order to just stay even with Hillary in the primaries. She was getting a minimum of 40% in every major city and creaming him in the burbs and rural areas.
Next, he needed the old Howard Dean voters and Al Gore loyalists. They were tending to vote for Edwards, so he had to ensure that he received Edwards' endorsement and Al Gore's blessing. Don't forget, he was dangling promises in front of everyone from Bill Richardson to John Kerry. You notice either of those two playing a role in the current administration?
Anyone who knew Obama's history (and I did, because he was my pathetic excuse for a senator) knew that he'd say anything he thought people wanted to hear in order to be elected. His FISA vote should have been a HUGE clue to anyone who was paying attention. In fact, I think it was a huge clue to the faux progressives; but, by the time it occurred, they had so demonized Hillary that the humiliation of admitting back *then* that they'd placed their bets on the wrong horse was more than they could deal with. Ergo, all the rationalizations and attempts to place blame elsewhere among the Dems or Obama's handlers.
Crash and burn time came with health care, because that was the clear-cut issue everyone understood. It came on top of an appalling record on civil liberties issues, no attempts to curb the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq, and huge give-aways of taxpayer dollars to banks with nothing in return for the jobless taxpayers. At some point, the bloodied and abused spouse decides to leave the house.
Unfortunately, previously reliable liberal congresspeople have decided to head over the cliff with Obama--just as the Repubs decided to give Bush everything he wanted even while it was destroying their credibility with the voters. Obama is going to take the entire party down with him in flames.
grayslady
As I've said before - this is not an uncommon phenomenon with NPDs. Some - at least the ones that are verbally skilled - create an artful ambiguity in their speech (and appearance). It generate the adulation/universal positive regard that the NPDs crave.
Their speech can sound beautiful - and listeners project onto it. This type of speech relies, in part, on elision. There's often plenty of actual deceit, but much more of it is skillful manipulation of appearance.
Whew, it's hard to keep up. I keep being drawn to hundreds-long reply posts just to see the convoluted forms the Obots' writhing takes! If I had to laugh and say "told you so" individually, I'd never be done!
Then it occurred to me....rush over to Buzzflash to see if Mark chief-O-fluffer Karlin has cracked yet.
omfg. No such thing. The man must have a lifetime supply of Hopium which he huffs 24/7. His headlines are dominated by begging for money, and the few that are not are dedicated to parroting the Obot stance that Lieberman is to blame (he must've missed the memo where Lieberman said Zero called and thanked him!) and that OpHRMa is just trying to save the country from bankruptcy and that if that's fear-mongering, what about all the Bush fear-mongering?
He's batsh!t crazy, on the O payroll, or both.
Speaking of lies--the reaction to Obama's decision to send more troops to Afghanistan is richly ironic, because Obama finally told the truth about something...and this has enraged his supporters.
That's a good one.
It is also ironic that his supporters were obviously hoping Obama was lying--and he dashed their hopes by telling the truth for a change.
It would be funnier if this lisping twerp weren't running the country.
Lastly, Obama's supporters voted for a guy who SAID he would raise troop levels in Afghanistan. This makes Obama supporters the worst Democrats ever.
Perry, JOHN KERRY also campaigned on that promise in '04. It was an entirely mainstream Democratic position-- Iraq was a bad war, Afghanistan was a good war, prosecuted incompletely or not really prosecuted at all because of the Iraq mess, and they ALL said they'd go in and finally finish that job.
You smear some 50+ million Americans who voted for Kerry and then for Obama??? Please reconsider your position.
The notion that McCain was the same as Obama is frankly whack. Quite clearly, the septuagenarian had anger management problems, to the point that REPUBLICAN Senators like Thad Chochran said the idea of McCain at the helm made his blood run cold in fear.
Fairly obviously, a president McCain would have started and ended his presidency with a 3rd world war with Russia over Georgia.
I find this backbiting and sneering back and forth among Democrats most dispiriting.
Yes, maybe those engaging in this are only giving now what they got then, but so what? Are you involved in political matters for revenge and 'I told you so' bragging rights? Why not save that for REPUBLICANS who are not our political friends, instead of splitting off those who should be our 85% allies? (Even barking at the GOP rank and file is counterproductive, if you want to change minds.)
XI
Post a Comment