One Democrat has proven he will do whatever it takes to get the job of President of the United States. Another Democrat knows the job and will be able to do it from the moment she is sworn in. One Democrat will need time to adjust from wild rallies and Senate back benching. (And he will not be able to skip out on tough issues as he has in the Senate) The other Democrat will need no training. I believe that the moment it became clear that Obama was running a negative campaign (Iowa, see post below) and that the major media would do his dirty work (see Olbermann any night of the week)that CLINTON NEEDED TO GET TOUGH. Call it negative, if you like. Obama, and his Kool Aid brigade, like Frank Rich, has been distorting Clinton's record and leveling bogus, snide, allegations since at least December. The ad below is the kind we should have seen a long time ago. It may be too late for Clinton to be finally hammering Obama. "Negative" campaigns take time to sink in. Clinton will not have the media on her side, as Obama does and as the Swiftboaters did. Obama has been running a negative campaign since at least Iowa. Clinton has no choice now. She must undermine the bogus Obama myth - or we must wait for McCain to do it all summer and fall. I am John in LA, and I very much approve this ad.
I am not sure what creeps me out more - the fact that morons might actually be fainting at Obama's show or that his campaign may be staging them. Watch the clip. These fainting moments are strikingly similar across the country. If they are staged it dovetails perfectly with the stolen speeches.
Mayor Richard J. Daley must be smiling somewhere. The Chicago machine is alive and well.
The dirty tricks of the Obama campaign are now being exposed. His campaign has lied through out, starting in Iowa. Please read this piece in the New Republic. First, in Iowa, the Obama camp aired radio ads patterned on the notorious "Harry and Louise" Republican propaganda from 1993, charging falsely that Senator Hillary Clinton's health care proposal would "force those who cannot afford health insurance to buy it, punishing those who won't fall in line." In subsequent primary and caucus campaigns, the Obama campaign sent out millions of mailers, also featuring the "Harry and Louise" motif, falsely claiming that Clinton favored "punishing families who can't afford health care in the first place." A few bloggers and columnists, notably Paul Krugman in The New York Times, described the ads as distorting, but the national press corps mainly ignored them
The lies have continued. The biggest Obama lie of all is that he is a new kind of leader, a leader who does not stoop to negative tactics. This is crap. Since the vicious 1984 video of last fall his campaign has smeared Clinton. The media, in love with Obama, has ignored the attacks - or in classic form - blamed the victim. Regardless of the "conventional wisdom" (real wisdom is rarely conventional) Hillary's campaign has been clean relative to Obama's. Clinton, to my distress, has not hit Obama hard. She is paying for it. Obama, with the help of an army of syncophants like Olbermann and Huffington, has fooled the Democratic Party.
Obama is a FRAUD and a LIAR. Will the Obama cult over at MSNBC cover this story of blatant Obama lies?
Clinton gave the government of Canada blanket permission to name whoever may have called them from her campaign. Obama's campaign did not deny that they called, but said the story was implausible. Yeah, well, mass extinction because of a meteor strike is implausible, too. But it happened.
Barack H. Obama - did you contact the Canadian Government to warn them that you would be lying to the American People about your stand on NAFTA?
I am prone to looking for conspiracies - not out of paranoia per say I am quick to write here. Whether the alleged intellectuals in this country like it or not - groups with power, and less often, groups without power, conspire. It is the historical norm, not its exception. Roman Senators conspired to kill Julius Caesar. A small group conspired to assist John Wilkes Booth. It is only the major modern events in which the dismissal of the possibility of conspiracies has been seen as sane. The Latte Liberal cognitive dissonance on conspiracies is obvious and severe. State that Bush/Cheney "conspired" to invade Iraq from day one and everyone is on board. Ask a Latte Liberal to examine the 9/11 "planned demolition" evidence and be ready to be called a nut. Bill Mahr, an otherwise helpful voice, came famously unglued when asked to address this evidence. The planned demolition evidence may not be totally irrefutable - but it comes damn close. Historical antecedents are numerous for events like 9/11. The Reichstag Fire is not a metaphor - it actually happened.
I find it fascinating that the GOP and the Democrats have essentially taken opposite roads in the last year. Republicans eliminated the more popular, but less qualified, candidates as the process unfolded. Invert that for the Democrats. I am unabashedly Pro Clinton - but Dodd, Richardson, Biden and Clinton are ALL more likely, BASED ON THE EVIDENCE, to have competent Administrations than Obama. But we seem to have chosen Obama. No one has a rational reason for this. There are reasons to support Obama - but thus far I have yet to hear one based on merit.
McCain is a stronger candidate on paper than Obama. Note: I say ON PAPER. No one is going to realistically attack McCain's resume. We made not like what it says, but it is lengthy. Starting with this fact, I ask - how does this play out in the Autumn? Democrats need to ask themselves this. We have never elected a person with a thinner resume than Obama. Some of you are now screaming LINCOLN! - you are, simply put, wrong. Lincoln made his name in a losing senatorial election during which he had a series of DAY LONG debates with his opponent. Obama has participated in sound bite debates during this election. Lincoln spoke out clearly on the some of the most divisive issues of his day: Slavery and the invasion of Mexico. He risked his political life and actual life in both cases. Obama avoids tough issues by littering his recycled speeches with bromides about unity and skipping Senate votes. Comparisons to JFK are so ridiculous that they are hardly worthy of comment. Kennedy: Service in the House, two Senate terms, war hero. Obama: state senator, one Senate term as a back bencher,"community organizing" and a talk show hostess endorsement. There is no comparison between John F. Kennedy and Barack H. Obama. It borders on the offensive to put them in the same sentence.
So how have we Democrats ended up with Obama when Biden, Dodd, Richardson, and Clinton are so much stronger - on paper? By the time September rolls around and the nation settles in to actually chose a President, not a boyfriend, McCain could easily walk off with the win. One terrorist attack and it is a McCain landslide. What is ON PAPER matters more often than it does not. Experience counts.
It seems to me we've been gamed. Yes, a conspiracy has unfolded. An open, perfectly legal, conspiracy.
By ignoring them, the main stream media never allowed Biden, Dodd or Richardson into the race. On the other side Rudy G, then Romeny, and finally Huckabee were knee capped. Of course, the 3 GOP losers had their own issues. Romeny would never have overcome his religion. But Rudy's history was ignored for years by the MSM they then raked him over hot coals with it for a few months and he was cooked. Huckabee was disposed of easily, though he was certainly more popular with the GOP base than McCain. Clinton has been quashed in large part because her missteps have been amplified by a nasty media, while Obama's deceits are ignored. Thought experiment: Imagine Olbermann's show this week if Clinton's speeches had been proven to be plagiarized - with video to prove it.
Of course, all sorts of things could come to pass that allow Obama to win. The cultural disfunction that has created him thus far could continue through November. McCain's health may become a concern. The current economic meltdown may be so severe by October that we elect anyone who says "new" and "change". I do not know. But from this far out McCain looks like a winner. He has now inched ahead in national polls - for one reason: experience. Democrats fell for an open, legal conspiracy - hook, line and sinker.
Keith Olbermann's first story last night was on Jon Stewart's joke at the Oscars about Barack Obama's middle name.
You may be surprised to learn that Mr. Olbermann did not find it amusing and compared Jon Stewart to Ann Coulter.
On Friday night his top story was on the photos of Senator Obama wearing African dress and he blamed Senator Clinton's camp for putting it in circulation. He said that Senator Clinton was giving the Republicans ammunition against Senator Obama for the general election. (I'm paraphrasing) First, Senator Obama has not sewn up the nomination, second, Senator Clinton has denied involvement and finally, why is it WRONG for Senator Clinton to fight for the nomination.
The parlor game of trashing Senator Clinton is fun! But say anything bad about Obama and you're hurting the party. Senator Clinton is supposed to make way for history. What? Isn't it just as historic to have a woman be president?
Mr. Olbermann also critized Saturday Night Live for their sketch on the press being "in the tank" for Obama. His comment was, "even the most pro-labor people would have regretted the settlement of the writers' strike."
I'm sorry to say that I have finally removed Countdown from my Tivo.
Everyone needs to pay attention to the banking situation. Everyone. Whether you have a million or a hundred in a bank. I don't pretend to know much about the banking situation but please look at the chart to the left and read the source here. Come to your own conclusion. Anyone who has been to a Safeway in the last month knows something is up in the economy. The media is, of course, still "wondering" if we are in a recession. Then again, if they could the media would spend 24/7 on Brittney Spears and Hillary's outfits. If we have learned anything in the last 7 years it is that the media is not to be trusted.
Thanks to Taylor Marsh for the heavy duty blogging she is doing on the Obama question marks. I saw this clip there. Obama himself does not think he is qualified for the White House. It is damning - and will certainly be a TV spot in the Fall.
The double standard amongst the Obamites is in full force today. One can hardly imagine what they would be saying if David Duke had made an hour long speech praising Hillary Clinton. Louis Farrakhan, in my estimation the lowest form of bigot (he dismisses the Holocaust) heaped praise on Barrack Hussein Obama Sunday. Late in the day his campaign repudiated Farrakhan.
Obama's church's magazine has written that Farrakhan "epitomized greatness".
How responsible is Obama for these two events? Not much. But while Obama repudiated Farrakhan he did not condemn his church's editorial decision to honor Farrakhan. He merely said he did not agree with it. This is a weak response from a weak man. Trumpet Magazine must be condemned by Obama in no uncertain terms. I disagree with much in my church. I have not left it, nor should Obama leave his. However, on all issues in my own church in which they are wrong I am vocal in opposition. Obama is running for President. Obama's church honored a monstrous bigot. There is no wiggle room here. Real leaders stand up in moments like this. Obama has gone far this election season on very little substance and even less experience. He is impossible to read - and that is what Axelrod and the rest of his handlers want. But there are moments when one can take the measure of a man regardless of the misdirection of his campaign team. This is one of those moments. At every point in Obama's career in which he could have stood up - he, instead, stood down. The 140 "present" votes, the confrontation with McCain in the Senate, absenting himself while the Senate voted on the Iranian Guard terrorism bill, appearing on stage with the homophobic minister in South Carolina - all relatively small moments - but add them up and we begin to see a man who is cowardly and spineless - a man who is in many ways the opposite of the one presented as a "great leader" by his handlers and their whorish surrogates in the media.
Obama's plagerism is not "small." His speeches are all he has - and he has stolen many of them.
Barrack Hussein Obama condemn Trumpet Magazine in no uncertain terms. Now.
On a purely political note: The Farrakhan flap reinforces my sense that an Obama nomination will set the Democratic Party back 10 years - at least. Any chance Obama had of winning a Southern state in November is now even smaller. Polls in states that now indicate a tight race between McCain and Obama (Mass, Oregon, PA, Ohio) can be easily won by the GOP. In fact, that Mass. is even in play with Obama on the ticket should give Democrats pause. John McCain will not let Obama slide the way Hillary has. Considering that thus far Obama's press has been glowing and McCain's has been mostly negative - polls in DEM leaning states should not be close now. Obama's negatives (and yes, all you Obamites, he has them) have barely been touched on. Should he defeat Clinton the attacks on him will be swift, brutal and relentless. They will be on Clinton too should she win the nomination. The difference? Clinton 's bad press will be redundant. Obama's will be NEWS.
Watching this video gives me hope. Real hope. Hope based in an understanding of reality, not a hope based in illusion. It gives me a hope based in the truth of our past, not a version plagerized from others. The American Dream can be reborn in 2008 - but not if we give in to a false dream based in false rhetoric. Inspiration that is based in fantasy and showmanship is not inspiration at all. It is delusion. Fight on, Hillary.
The title of this post is taken from a comment on a Taylor Marsh blog I link here. I thank Carolyn at Make Them Accountable for her tireless efforts in cataloguing and forwarding recent stories about Obama that are being ignored by the major media.
More and more I am coming to believe there is an Obama "mania" griping a vast swatch of the American population. I have endearingly referred to it as "beatlemania" - a label taken from a friend. But this does not describe what I see now. The most fervent Obamites are not just fainting at his "shows" some of them seem to have gone around the bend entirely and are now determined to quash all criticism of their chosen one. Here's a comment at Democratic Underground: Taylor Marsh is a deplorable piece of filth. A political whore. She's worse than kkkarl, who at least sticks to fucking over the opposition party. Charming Taylor is swiftboating Obama in the ugliest possible way. She is beneath contempt. And so is anyone who post's crap like this: http://www.taylormarsh.com / There's no excuse for it. None. And if you cozy up to her, you're no better than she is. You get it? Disagree with us, you are filth...
Though extreme it fits perfectly the pattern I have experienced and heard about when anyone has attempted a reasoned debate about Obama. This is not support. It is mental illness. It is also wrong since Rove was perfectly happy to screw McCain in South Carolina in 2000. Why is it mental illness? Because they cannot abide attacks on Obama but gleefully insult Clinton while saying they are not. DENIAL is a hallmark of many forms of neurosis.
The underpinnings of Obama's rise are anger, unconscious sexism, and very well managed misdirection. All this combined has added up to a "persona" called Obama that is not at all connected to the actual plagiarizing, weak in the knees, inexperienced man child senator from Illinois.
I hold out no hope that the Obama lemmings can be stopped before they run the Democratic Party and possibly the country off a cliff. It is impossible to say what kind of President Obama would be. That is what is so scary. A year into his campaign, it is impossible to say.
Is he a radical like the Weather Underground connections might suggest. Is he a reactionary like the cave in to BIG NUKES implies? Is he a coward as the Senate confrontation with McCain would seem to suggest? Is he a great leader? Maybe - but if so his actual ideas and solutions are boilerplate nonsense that are less innovative than Bush's circa 2000 platform.
He is not yet worthy of a thinking person's vote. The more I hear from Obama's supporters the more I have to conclude that they are not thinking - and they have no intention of starting now.
Post Script: From the Taylor Marsh blog linked above that should be read by all: William Ayers is an unrepentant terrorist, though he is normally described as a distinguished education professor. One does not necessarily rule out the other, but he himself acknowledges planting bombs in U.S. Federal buildings.
The connnection between Ayers and Obama is ongoing and long lasting. Some how Hardball has missed it so far. I wonder if the GOP will skip running ads about it in the fall?
By Obama's own moral standards, Obama fails. Great piece on the Obama campaign's disconnect be what it says and what it beleives linked above. Read the whole thing. Since he even steals his high flying rherotic should anyone be surprised when he turns out to be just another politician?
As for the Larry Sinclair accusation of sex and drugs with Obama that Big Gay Al brought up in the comments of the last post - I will say this: I don't believe it. But does anyone think for a second that if he had made a similar charge against Hillary that he wouldn't be on the next Fox and Friends?Here is the clip because...well...it is so damn funny...
Finally: for Jay in Los Angeles who has commented on the fundemental inhumanity of GOP policies I link this:
I am baffled but what I read as Clinton's continued timidity in going after Obama. She goes after his high flying rhetoric but that is it. It is odd. That is the only word I have right now to describe it. Odd. She could go after his record. She could go after him on facts. Cold Hard Facts. His unwillingness to buck Bush on the war, his cowardly voting record, the disconnect between what he says and what he has done. There are many reasons to resist voting for Obama. People WANT TO BE GIVEN REASONS. Until they get them it is a race between a great speaker and a person trying to trip the great speaker up.
The party is almost over for Clinton. She has either opted for losing with some dignity, or there is some news about Obama out there that will hurt him and save her. I am a believer in hardball politics. People say they are sick of it - but we lie to ourselves. We love it. Obama and Axelrod have played hardball with Hillary. They have ensured, with the help of Olberman and Huffington and the rest, that the story is Hillary's downfall - NOT Obama's qualifications.
The Obama campaign of 2008 and Bush's in 2000 are similar in this: Both men run on unity - while supporters in the media and elsewhere do all the dirty work. Olberman is compulsive at this point in his love for Obama. Cutting into Hardball yesterday to "break" news from the NY Times that 10 years ago McCain had a blonde around. This was hardly about McCain and all about attacking Obama's perceived opponent. All day the story had been Michelle Obama's stupid remark about finally having pride in America. Keith Olberman could not take it. His lover was being slimed.
Obama has had the benefit, like Bush in 2000, of a media that has already decided on him being the winner. The media does his dirty work so that he doesn't have to. Hillary seemingly has no friends in the media left. Like it or not - it is and has been - up to her campaign to balance the imbalance in the media. She has not done it. Hardball politics is happening. MSNBC has thrown down for Obama. Fox News has gone silent - in large part because they know Obama is much more beatable that Clinton in a general ( any world event, like the riots today in Kososvo, shine a brutal light on Obama's youth and a glowing light on McCain's experience. This will become more evident as the general election approaches. One "national security" news cycle in October - a bombing, an attack on the flow of world oil and suddenly all Obama's crap about "sitting down to talk" to world leaders is rendered childish.) CNN remains in the nether-land of "please watch us, too!" and are mostly a pointless network.
So the nomination slips from Hillary's grasp. And she stands by and lets it go. For a person who detractors say "will do anything" to win she is not putting up much of a fight. It's odd.
Oil has gone past 100 dollars a barrel. In a sane media culture this would be big news. Why? Because there is no reason for it - except, of course, the geological one. We want more than can be pumped out. The oil age is over. And as Kunstler always says - we have got to make other arangements. Krugman airs some things out here: Peak oil, a dismal theory that keeps getting more plausible...
2 articles to read. If you don't read this post at least read the articles. Ambassador Wilson endorses Clinton here. Great article on what's wrong with Obama called The Audacity of Hype at the end of this post.
What to do about Barack Hussein Obama? Clinton's campaign is in big, maybe terminal, trouble. Big victories in Ohio and Texas will keep her going. There is little reason to believe she will get BIG victories.
She has not - and seemingly will not - go for the Obama's jugular. It's exposed. The information is out there. And yet her campaigns attacks on him are intermittent and timid. Even the media is starting to probe Obama's underbelly. Finally. "Hope" is being exposed as "hype".
I truly don't think I can vote for Obama in the fall unless he presents something other than "change" and empty rhetoric. I admit to voting for Arnold the second time because, frankly, his Democratic opponent was pathetic - and he was governing to the LEFT of his Democratic predecessor. I have never seen fit to vote for another GOP in my life. but McCain hardly appeals to me. His economic stands are "for the rich, by the rich" , he has bought into the endless war meme, he believes a woman's womb belongs to the state. The list goes on.
But Obama is a weak man. Yes, I said it. His tiny record tells a tale of cowardice and compromise - followed up by kick ass speeches. Obama is bad for my political party. He is everything he says he's not. Divisive, arrogant, petulant, bereft of real ideas and has demonstrated bad judgement in everything except his own self promotion. As these truths about him unfold the buyer's remorse will be overwhelming and the Democrats will pay.
I wonder if 4 years of McCain is such a bad idea. He is not a criminal like Bush and Cheney. His conservative stances are wrongheaded, but he is not a buffoon, like W. We would keep Congress and could thwart the worst of his policies. And maybe in 2012 a Clinton/Warner ticket would sail into the White House...
RNC memo on Obama below. They are going to bury this man. Just because Clinton is being too nice to put this memo in the form of 30 second spots does not mean that the RNC won't come September. Read it. The title is:MEET BARACK OBAMA (D-IL) An Inexperienced, Insulated, Arrogant, Unabashed Liberal click below /022107Obama.pdf
The housing market is in a free fall. Britain just had it's first "run" on a bank since the 1800's. Oil is going up up up. The situation in Afghanistan is worsening. (Two car bombs in the last few days killed over 100 people.) Iraq? Never ending. The dollar is in the tank. (I'm convinced the Brits will get the colonies back without a fight - just give us your pounds.)
Why would anyone want to be President? It's a bit like someone saying during the collapse of Enron that they would really love to have Ken Lay's job.
Perhaps the response to Obama is partly that we are so scared that we want to live in denial and pretend that we're not in real trouble. Nero fiddling while Rome burns. Can we afford an interest-only President? The bills are going to come due and I want someone in the Oval Office who knows how to balance a check book.
I want someone tough who is going to tell us, guess what? You have to pay taxes. Someone who will find solutions to the ever worsening job market. Someone who has a good idea for Healthcare. (I don't understand why every big business in America doesn't jump on Senator Clinton's band wagon. National Healthcare will make us competetive with every other industrialized nation.) Someone who will appoint Joe Biden Secretary of State, use his ideas for Iraq and win the war. Someone who can handle the housing crisis and save people's homes.
The arguments against Clinton like she's calculating work in her favor for me. Show me a successful CEO who is not calculating. You have to be able to see ten steps ahead to get initiatives passed.
She's cold. Great. Well, since we're not able to afford heat I want someone who is cold enough to stand up to the energy companies to get us heat.
She's always wanted to be President. Tiger Woods has always wanted to golf. Tom Brady has always wanted to throw a football. Meryl Streep has always wanted to act. Guess what? They're pretty good at their jobs.
We're going to return to the scandal plagued '90's. Republicans never care about that shit. Dick Cheney spent the last seven years trying to get back to Nixonian power. John McCain isn't afraid to go for POWER just because George Bush had a scandal a week. Senator Clinton is tough enough to fight back. We need that.
She's a divider and Senator Obama is a uniter. Anyone who believes that is dreaming. If he's such a uniter why is he only 50 delegates ahead? If you count Florida, which we should, he's behind.
What really makes me angry is that most of these agruments would not be arguments if she were a man. They would be benefits.
So to all the young women out there who support Obama let me tell you something. After you graduate from four years of college you will make $.74 for every dollar a man makes. Women like Senator Clinton helped pave the way for you to have the opportunites you do have. Thirty years ago you could not have gotten a car, a credit card or a house without a man co-signing for you. Nurses who got pregnant had to leave their jobs at 28 weeks and when they came back to work had to start from scratch. Birth control was illegal in some states and you can forget about a safe and legal abortion.
I want a woman to be our President. I especially want a smart, hard working, calculating woman to be our President.
The media has fallen so head over heels, ass over tea cups in love with the persona presented by Obama that they are only now - and just barely - beginning to ask of him the hard questions. They are only now beginning to report on the Obama underbelly: stealing speeches, caving to Nuclear Power special interests, back room real estate deals, a truly pathetic Senate record, ongoing relationships with former members of the Weather Underground (this nugget will, by itself, lose the election to McCain). Obama's persona has been coached and fed with misdirection, led by a very skilled orator. Little has been done to rebut the onslaught of nasty and misleading reporting of the Olbermans and Huffingtons. I suspect nothing can stop much of the adoring Obamite media until Clinton is out of the race. Then they were wonder aloud if they went too far - and move on to the next victim.
But balanced reporting is returning here and there. This is to be encouraged regardless of who one prefers. We can't afford an unvetted nominee. Period. What concerns me is the lack of rational thought emanating from the Obama crowd. If no one gets enough delegates to secure the nod before the convention the Obamites will do what ever it takes to make Hillary the bad cop. What Hillary will do is fight for the nomination. As well she should. As any man would. The meme will be that Clinton should step aside "for the good of the party".
This is bullshit.
As it stands now (and we await the rest of the primaries) both candidates can make a claim to the nomination. Though, if fairness prevails and Florida is counted, Clinton's case is stronger. Because much of Obama's feverish support comes from people who are seemingly irrational ( don't believe me? Read the comments on almost any "neutral" blog.) and because much of the media has rendered itself incapable of a fair assessment of the race - I believe it may be next to impossible for the party to come together. This is NOT a result of Clinton's support. The hysteria is coming from Obama's side. The nastiness is coming from Obama's supporters. Not the man himself, mind you. But he doesn't need to go negative with cabin boys like Olberman on the job. So much of it is mindless hatred of Bill and Hillary Clinton. "Billary" as they are fond of saying. Given that "Billary" did a pretty fine job one can only conclude that the Obamites are irrational, given to emotionalism, and, frankly, childish.
Bill Clinton was a successful President. Let me repeat that: BILL CLINTON WAS A SUCCESSFUL PRESIDENT. The attack on history and on truth from the Obamites is proof that they cannot come up with, or conjure up, a solid defense of their candidate. Therefore they must slime Hillary's husband. They are attacking their own homes. They are attacking the Democratic Party. They are poisoning the process.
There is no change without sacrifice. There is a reason that only now is Obama coming up with specifics. Specifics open you up to rebuttal and dissection. Can Obama withstand this? Will his fans tolerate a man who plagiarizes? A man who is to the RIGHT of Clinton on many issues? A man who has to answer questions after his soaring speeches? A man whose "vision" gets him to noon on January 20th 2009 and no further?
If Obama wins out and Clinton is defeated fair and square then Clinton supporters will have to reassess. Still, nothing is automatic. Obama has not earned my vote because he has done nothing worthy of earning it. I state that with no emotion ( and i admit to a lot of emotion around the election). I see no reason to support this man. There are no accomplishments worthy of elevation to the White House. When I state this to an Obama supporter I am told "but look what he has accomplished on the campaign" an answer too empty and without logic to be worthy of anything but bemused disgust.
Bush ran on "change" and, by God, we got it. Obama may yet earn my vote. But I will not, nor will any of the Clinton voters I know, hand off my allegiance to a campaign that is actively tearing my party asunder by rewriting its history. That is what they are doing. There is now poison in the well. We should not deny it. I don't like what Obama's people are doing to the process. The shouting from his side is too often overwhelming and without merit.
A fair and balanced argument over who can better lead the nation is not too much to ask. Of course, that would lead any rational observer to support Clinton.
The charismatic, brilliant, inspiring black politician came to the stage to address the latest attack from his white female opponent.
"Her dismissive point, and I hear it a lot from her staff, is all I have to offer is words," he said. "Just words.
"'We holds these truths to be self-evident,'" he continued as the crowd began to cheer and applaud, "'that all men are created equal' -- just words. Just words."
The applause increased.
"'We have nothing to fear but fear itself,'" the pol said. "Just words. 'Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.' Just words,'" he said, switching effortlessly from our Founding Fathers to FDR to JFK.
And then, the piece de resistance: "'I have a dream' -- just words," he said.
Barack Obama rebutting Hillary Clinton circa 2008?
Nope. Deval Patrick, ultimately successful Massachusetts gubernatorial candidate, responding to then-Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey in October 2006.
Of course, if you mistook the speech for one from Obama, you can be forgiven -- just this weekend Obama said something quite similar.
"Don't tell me words don't matter," Obama said to Wisconsin Democrats. "'I have a dream' -- just words. 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal' -- just words. 'We have nothing to fear but fear itself' - just words. Just speeches."
Just words, indeed. Words you didn't credit to someone else.
Interesting NBC (not msnbc) report on Saint Obama. Many on the Obama side insisted that all Hillary had was her "inevitability" and once that ended it was over. All Obama has is his aura of "saintliness" - once that is punctured he is just another politician. And a young, inexperienced one at that. Watch the report below - more evidence that Obama is misleading his sheep, and is, finally, a coward.
P.S. find this on youtube and check out some of the Obamite comments. I swear the ObamiteYouth is scary.
The feverish ranks of the Obama devoted are now putting forth two arguments regarding the delegates. 1. The Super delegates should not be allowed to decide the nomination. They presume that Clinton could hold on to and persuade enough Super-delegates to win the nod. They are up in arms because they believe that this would be an affront to democracy. In other words - They want to change the rules. 2. Then in an astounding example of functional denial they believe that under no circumstances should the Florida delegation be seated - effectively and punitively disenfranchising 1.7 million voters. Florida committed the grave sin of having an election is the New Hampshire high holy month of January. This meme is fueled by a delusion - of course. That is: if Obama had campaigned there he would most certainly have won. This neglects, of course, that Clinton did not campaign there either. But rational arguments are not to be bothered with in Obamaland.
Of course, if Florida had gone to Obama by a large margin instead of Clinton these hypocrites would be screeching to have the delegation seated. This goes to one of my main arguments with the Obama campaign: They insist on announcing "new" era in politics - then play the same dirty hardball games they attack. Their idea of "New Politics" is "our guy wins, no matter what."
It is now entirely possible that back room scheming by the likes of Donna Brazille will end up with Florida throwing yet another election.
Obama's Campaign has not needed to go overtly negative Because MSNBC - Olberman and Matthews, in particular - are Obama's house slaves and are doing Obama's negative campaigning for him. Therefore "OH HOLY ONE ON HIGH OBAMA" can appear above it all - oozing nonsense about "hope" and joking about Oprah Winfrey being V.P. (and DR. PHIL FOR SEC. OF STATE?)
And Hillary is on her way out. She does not seem to want to go all the way in brining Obama down. It is odd. Clinton's campaign reminds me of 1992 - except she is playing the role of Daddy Bush. She, and her people, still don't seem to understand what is coming at them.
Everyone says they don't like negative campaigns - but the fact is we do - and we choose based on negative ads all the time. They work. Obama is running negative ads every night - they are called "Hardball" and "Countdown with Keith Olberman"
Michigan is the 8th largest state. Florida is the 4th. It is absurd that these 2 large states will not be able to participate in choosing the nominee of our party. Sign the petition here. Howard Dean cannot be allowed to turn the union back to 1959 - and 48 states.
2. Hillary Clinton declared winner in New Mexico caucuses. Read all about it here.
3. Clinton far out in front of Obama in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Read it here.
Since I have been consistently questioning Obama's candidacy this blog has doubled its traffic. In the small world of this blog that ain't much, but I notice such things and if nothing else it proves there is a small, but growing, group out there that are willing to question the fervor surrounding him. I am not balanced in my complaints. But I don't pretend or intend to be. I believe my biases to be grounded in a reality based view of the world and the massive clamor to anoint this man President is not. I repeat this over and over again: the two prongs of Obama's support are A. hopeful projection and B. a seething sexism directed at Hillary Clinton that no one dares own up to. The Huffington Post and MSNBC is where this sexism reaches its zenith.
There are reasons NOT to support Hillary Clinton. They can almost never stand alone, always needing an unjust jab at her husband or an attack on her war vote (though, aside from one speech, Obama's war record is identical) to shore the arguments up. It is not, in the final analysis, hatred of Senator Clinton. It is hatred and fear of women in powerful positions. Sexism is the ghost in the machine. How do you say to people "the reaction you are having is not because she is ambitious - it is because she is a female and ambitious." ?? Other than to just say it and incur the wrath of the hapless P.C tron who can't see his or her denial. It is so contrary to what the PC crowd now supporting Obama believes about itself that it cannot be accepted.
But it is true.
The devaluing of talent, work ethic, merit,and experience are the natural by product of the unwillingness to examine this last divide in American life. Women are still considered less worthy of powerful positions. In policy terms there is barely a whiff of difference between Clinton and Obama. One would think that a sane nation would then judge these two based on experience and accomplishment. But quietly and without noticing it we have accepted that the Presidency is only a show anyway. That real power in America lives elsewhere. This has not always been the case. Theodore Roosevelt announced that he would use the "bully pulpit" that he had been thrust into. But everyone understood that the bully pulpit was part of his job - not its entirety. Flash forward to Bush 2, in which being a bully in a pulpit was all Bush has done. Those with real power got what they wanted and Bush just acted as cheerleader and con man for the nation. Because the current chant for change seems utterly rudderless I suspect it won't withstand the gale of real power. Washington is a mean place. It always has been. To ignore this is to fantasize about history. Anyone who thinks a junior Senator can change D.C. by simply being in the White House is - as I keep repeating - delusional. What sticks in my craw about Obama is that I don't actually think he believes he can change the way the nation is ordered. None of his policy statements do anything but nudge one way or another. All are within the expected and accepted norms of current American politics. I don't know that I fear him at all. A talented "jawboner" in the White House can accomplish quite a lot. If he stated without reservation he intended to remove the corrosive power of money in D.C. I would have the HOPE so many now insist he is restoring. Barring that - not much will change in the capitol.
I do fear his followers - or what his followers represent. Bill Clinton ran on hope in 1992 and we took a risk. It paid off, as he turned out to be smart and hardworking. But 1992 is not 2008. The country is desperate for change now. The words "change" and "desperate" in the same sentence is what alarms me. The most vocal seem to believe "Obama is magic" to paraphrase Sarah Silverman's comment about Jesus. Luck often plays a part in politics. Magic never does. The only change Obama is willing to promote thus far is entirely personality driven. That is dangerous territory for a democracy. By this time in 1932 FDR was running as the happy warrior AND on the New Deal. What, exactly, is Obama's New Deal?
If he turns out to be a new FDR I will say "oops, I was wrong" and follow it with a hearty "yippee!" The New Depression is closing in fast. All things being equal I would rather have the lady with brass knuckles at the helm.
On a lighter note watch the video below. It is a worthy distraction.
I suppose it had to come to this: The latte liberals have finally over run my party. The Huffington/ Geffen goon squads at last found a way to leverage the Democratic loyalty of African Americans toward their chosen SON. (African American voters are voting their conscience, hearts, and with the full force of our painful history at their backs. This alone is what is inspiring about Obama. I direct NONE of my considerable disgust at that voting block.)
But the half African American candidate is also now the candidate of the upper class white liberals that fund so much of the party and, most bizarrely, of the poorer liberals who are convinced that the cagey Obama represents them.
Just one question: "Yes we can" WHAT? Is there a thought after the happy phrase?
Yes, we can enjoy a season of self congratulation. YES WE CAN! Yes, we can deny further our already numbing denial of what we've allowed in our names during the past 7 years. YES WE CAN! Yes, we can mistake form for content yet again! YES WE CAN! Yes, we Democrats can do the GOP 's bidding and condemn the one successful Democratic Administration in two generations. YES WE CAN! And, by God, it bloody well feels good to scream YES WE CAN!
See, a President Hillary might not bother to add a dollop of happy talk in every press release. A President Hillary might not be as charming as the handsome waiter working for a bigger tip at every press conference. A President Hillary might actually - having prepared us with an honest campaign - ask us to endure some pain as we right the ship after the catastrophe of Bush 2.
No we can't keep living miles past our means. No we can't expect the subprime/now"prime" train wreck to work it self out like any other bubble. No we can't expect Iraq to be solved by repeating a speech made as a state senator. No we can't expect President Putin to be charmed and fall to pieces over Mr. Obama. No we can't expect BIG HEALTH to sign on to a ridiculous health care plan. No we can't expect a man who has uses gay bashing ministers as props to ensure the basic rights of gay Americans. No we can't stop the looming oil crisis with chanting and hype. Most tragic of all NO WE CAN'T end 500 years of racism in one election cycle. Nothing breaks my heart more than this particular Obamite delusion.
My only "hope" is that the thousands of Obama primary voters who DON'T go to those increasingly hysterical rallies know better. If not - the coming shower will be long and frigid.
Hillary Clinton is not the only hope left in the race. She is the only realistic hope. I am doomed to saying this over and over again: President Clinton DID bring us together. He left office with overwhelming support. A tiny minority with massive megaphones has convinced us otherwise.
Obama has painted himself into a tight corner. The speeches are vague, but the results will have to be tangible. Will Obama's current crop of fervent followers like what they finally get? I doubt it for one simple reason: He is not a progressive. Never has been. Go on, you have the internets, check it out. The Left that has run to him by misunderstanding and misremembering Jack Kennedy will be stunned when they see a President cut deals, and show his true colors as yet another corporatist. Clinton would not have this problem since she has never presented herself as a progressive. Besides JFK was a moderate who only became a liberal icon after having his head blown off.
I don't know what Fox News and all it represents is up to, but the silence on Obama should give us all pause. Either, in reality Obama is a company man and they are fine with him winning. Or they are waiting. Conservatives may not like McCain but they like being out of power less.
I admit that watching an Obama/McCain race this fall will be fascinating. When will the media turn on Obama? (Ms. Huffington, the queen bee of the Obama delusion squad, is coaching the media now to stay the course with B.O. and turn on McCain, instead.) How far to the middle can Obama go? Will the conservative hit squad stomach McCain and go after Obama? (Not if Obama is really one of them). How will "national security" play out if something drastic happens in September? I can answer all these questions if Clinton is the nominee. The media has turned on her. She already owns the middle. Conservatives will squeal like stuck pigs. National security will be a wash.
But 2008 is a year for taking leaps - that it will be a blind leap is of little concern.
The closer Obama comes to winning then nomination the more my conflict about this race roils me. I have been a Hillary Clinton supporter for years. I, like many others, thought she would surely be the nominee. She is the most qualified candidate. That fact can hardly be argued. It rarely is argued. Nevertheless, the fact is her time may not be now, or ever. As Obama rumbles through the rest of the February primaries all of us Clinton supporters have to come to grips with a choice. Contrary, to Mr. Obama's confident (over confident?) statements that he would get all Clinton's support should he be the nominee I know no committed Clintonites that feel good about switching to him in the general. I'll grant you that amounts to ten people, all friends and family. So it isn't much. Of those I know 5 that state flat out now they won't vote Obama in the general election. 2 who say they would have to, given the choices we will be left with. I don't know what I'll do. Contrary to the popular meme - I CAN see a way for McCain to end the war and can easily see Obama's lack of experience prolonging it. I CAN see McCain ending the Bush cabals ghastly use of torture (and they are using torture). That's it for the pros in the McCain column. Any Democrat would be better on every other issue. But Obama, with ample time and opportunity, has not earned my vote. Even when I earnestly ask for reasons from his supporters WHY should I vote for this man - I have yet to get a solid answer. Hopes. Dreams. Projections. Those are the answers. (That and a wild right wing misreading of Bill Clinton's time in office). Hope and dreams are the bread and butter of American politics. I fully embrace the energies fueling Obama's rise. But the energies are not - as far as I can see - based in reality. This is not to say that all Obama voters thus far are fantasizing. Clearly they are not. They see in this man a potentially greater future that the grim profit driven darkness Bush has cloaked us in. The hope of Obama is fueled by the contempt many good Americans have for what Bush has done to us. And the damage of the Bush years to the American body politic is severe and deeper than most of us know. Can any of the Obama supporters state why they think he can repair this damage? Do any of the allegedly progressive Obama supporters understand or care about how imbedded he is in policies they find retrogressive? The evidence suggests the Obamamania sweeping the land is a fad. As with all fads quality is not relevant. Mr. Obama may be a man of deep integrity (though evidence gone unreported by the media suggests otherwise) - but who knows. I am not even sure I fault him for this. If I wanted to be President and was winning over voters left and right by saying nothing, but saying it well - I would not suddenly START to replace form with content just to prove a point either.
Finally, two other things bother me. The speed of his ascent and the strident glee of his ardent fans. It is not too much to require of our candidates that they prove themselves by doing some heavy lifting. As Dan Ranger said weeks ago about Obama: He's been anointed, not elected. JFK and Ike were war heroes, FDR a governor. Lincoln? Well, if you think the country is about to be torn asunder by a civil war - then, sure, use Abe as your antecedent for Obama. Lincoln unified the country, too, in a manner of speaking.
His fervent supporters do not encourage me in his direction. Krugman used the phrase "cult of personality" in the NYT today and I see no reason to find fault with this. I have been yelled at, dismissed, and told I was stupid not to support him. Anecdotally, I know of other Clinton voters who have confronted the same fate recently. I would call his people a "happy mob" - but a mob nonetheless. Can he right this ship should he become the nominee? Can he take the energies his campaign has unleashed and direct them back to earth? Maybe. I don't see any particular reason why not. He certainly has the political chops. If he does, count me in. Politics is the art of the possible. As the NYT stated when they endorsed Clinton - the potential for a great Obama administration is real. But my queasiness persists. Why hasn't he seized his moment to demand universal healthcare? Or put forth a real plan to withdrawal our troops in his first term? Or insisted his judges will uphold Roe v Wade? Or struck a blow for the rights of Gays and Lesbians? In fact, as a progressive, I can say that he has not come down unequivocally on any major issue that I care about. Presidents who make me feel good do not necessarily make me proud. In her "crying" moment in New Hampshire a while back Clinton made a statement that no one seemed to notice. She said she was running because she "sees what's coming". Dig just below the surface of the reports on the financial meltdown or world oil production and anyone can SEE WHAT'S COMING. But Does Senator Obama? Do his voters understand the rough waters ahead? What will they do when they find out that the cake and ice cream party of American life has been called off forever by the financial hurricane coming on shore as I write?
If Obama becomes the nominee I can say now he probably has my vote. But only because the other guy's values are clearly not my own.
