The Xanax Candidate.

A number of factors have driven this blog toward its harsh criticism of Obama and his campaign.
1. His supporters. 2. The Candidate. 3. The media bias. 4. The stupidity of Howard Dean and the DNC.

Tonight I will write about the first reason:

His supporters

I have been upset by his supporters for a good, long while. In the olden days - before Keith Olbermann blew a cog and it became clear the media was going to massage Obama and attack Hillary shamelessly - it was, in fact, only his supporters who bothered me. I was still open to the man and what everyone kept repeating was his "transformational" message.

It was his supporters that began the end of any romance I might have had with Obama. As early as last spring any good words for Hillary on message boards at places like the Huffington Post were quickly and viciously attacked by swarms of Obama fans. Often they amounted to "our guy is better" and "it's time for a change" - both are fair enough assessments if you feel that way. Then -with ample coaching from the writers on these blogs - the comments turned overtly hateful toward Clinton. Again - if one must come up with reasons - this too seems within bounds for blogs. They are the Left's answer to Talk Radio - and the "callers" had much pent up frustration with the war and everything else. If you can't stand being hated you had better not get into politics. I still believe the comments then were contextualized by an overriding desire for a clean break. This is another sentiment I don't adhere to (there are no clean breaks in history, believing there are or can be is a delusion) but it is a legitimate impulse. Every leader is a reaction, in some measure, to the one before. Besides, Obama has proven he will not be a "clean break" with his wavering on the war and support for its funding as a Senator. So the "clean break" Obama seems to represent is another amorphous illusion based entirely on - wait for it - HIS RACE. The honest answer would be: If he wins I won't be embarrassed by our President anymore. That is what they were saying.

Then Obama fans became a mob. I am not sure exactly when. For me it may have been one night not long ago that I posted this on a large liberal blog: Can anyone tell me why they think Obama would be a better Democratic President than Clinton? The comment conversation was flying that night but I got no bites - so I wrote it again. Soon the roof fell in. I used my last name (Smart) so the obvious insults were first. Then the long knives came out on Hillary. It was no longer dislike or even hate - it had solidified into mindless fury. "Bitch" "Liar" "Murderer" and the cute, yet smug as shit, "Billary". Bitch and Billary are insults based squarely in sexism. Sexism exists in America. Everyone with a brain knows this. What was startling is the glee and unconsciousness these liberals - men and women - indulged in rampant gender hatred. One person did write a long list of BHO's "accomplishments" - fine - but even if true (many were not) they simply were no comparison to Clinton's, so it hardly answered the question. I was, of course, told I was a Republican ("troll" in the Americablog vernacular)so I should go directly to hell. I am not a Republican - but even if I was I asked a legitimate question. The nastiness kept up. I have done this on other blogs at other times and the result is the same. No answers, just bile. Insane, baseless attacks. The cognitive dissonance between the "message of hope" these Obama supporters said they adhered to and the crap being thrown on the walls of liberal blogs was obvious to anyone who could reason. Thank God, a backlash began. The Daily Kos was boycotted by pro Clinton writers. Taylor Marsh said, in essence, hold on a minute! No Quarter USA is doing fine work on the Obama cabal and its deceits.

Still, the Pro Obama wing of the "Democratic" party became nastier and more strident. ( I use quotes here because I have come to believe that except for African Americans, Obama's support among rank and file Democrats is clearly a "Deanite" rump minority and does not represent the Democratic Party's values and voters. Final voting tallies will support this.) Again, "nasty" and "strident" are not deal breakers for me. This became the deal breaker: beyond the amorphous slogan "hope" and the fallback slogan "change" there is STILL no intelligent rational for Obama's support. No centering issue. No "New Deal". Nothing. The speeches are not part of the campaign. THEY ARE THE CAMPAIGN. The "uplifing" race speech has inspired us indeed- to stop talking about race and by default stop talking about Wright and his influence on Obama. But that's where that "major" speech ended.

The more strident the Obamites become, the more this lack of policy ballast becomes clear. Which is why attacking Clinton is the rational for supporting Obama. Arianna Huffington was first out of the gate here. She began the slow, smug burn of Clinton in 2006 - or before - for reasons I strongly suspect are about her psychological make up. I saw her on the campaign trail for her ex husband in 1994 when he ran against Diane Feinstein. The contempt for any strong women beside herself was evident then as it is now.


But for me the show stopper and final straw was Olbermann's idiotic rant about Fererro. More than Chris Matthews smarmy sexism, it defined the lack of reason, fairness, decency and proportionality that are the Obama supporters currency. That "special comment" was the moment I realized that Obama fever was a sickness that had spread far and wide. The fact that the Wright tapes broke the next day and Keith busied himself with excuses for BHO drove the point home.

As Lynne wrote about this morning: The Obama sickness's main symptom is an utter and complete inability to see reality clearly. Whether it be an obvious, and harmless, observation about race to a small newspaper, or the snide dismissal of the last Democratic President, or even the disconnect between Obama's statements about Iraq and his actions regarding the war as a U.S. Senator. Reality DOES NOT MATTER to Obama's supporters. The clear antecedent here is Cheney/Bush and WMD's.

Thought experiment:
Compare what they said about Ferarro with the excuses they fling about BHO's 20 year tenure in his church. I think Obama can and should go to any church he wants to for 20 or 200 years. I also WILL NOT BE TOLD THAT IT DOES NOT MATTER what went on in that congregation. I will not check my brains at the door for Obama's or Olbermann's convenience.

Or try this: Randi Rhodes verbal vomitting is being excused under the banner of "freedom of speech" - as if anyone said she did not have the RIGHT to say what she said. She does. Now imagine this: Rush Limbaugh is speaking to a crowd of the like minded and says "Obama and Jesse Jackson are a couple of lazy spooks." Would anyone DARE make excuses for this based on "freedom of speech"? Of course not. There would be hell to pay.

Yet the Obamites march on - calling themselves "liberals".

And before anyone screams "unfair!" I say bullshit. THEY ARE THE SAME REMARKS in spirit and intent.
Calling 2 women "fucking whores" and calling 2 black men "lazy spooks" is directly analogous in this society given its history. To say that the long fight for women's equality is less important in this election year than the long march away from chatel slavery based on race is bullshit. On a stick. If you think not it is because sexism is more deeply imbedded than racism. Period. "Whore" and "Bitch" still get thrown around with ease. This is not because they are less hateful - they are simply still acceptable.

So the beat goes on.

Say this to an Obamite: Rezko - the answer is "does not matter"

Say: He lied about his law teaching resume: Does not matter.

Say: He lied about the Kennedy family and the Selma march: Does not matter.

William Ayres: Does not matter.

Race baiting in South Carolina: Doesn't matter, she deserved it.

20 years in that church: Get over it! We have to get past it. We're not going there. He made a speech...etc, etc.. (again the SPEECH is what is held up as absolution. Not the reality of 20 years in that church and overtly lying about his presence there.)

Bosnia: OH MY GOD SHE'S A LIAR!!! She has problems with the truth. Usually ending with "controlling" which is code for bitch.

Xanax is a marvoulous drug. It directly obliterates one thing and nothing else: anxiety. There are a few side effects: drowsiness, and memory problems. Obama is the Xanax candidate. He relieves his supporters of their fears and all they have to do is take a dose. But once the drug wears off nothing has changed. The problems that caused the anxiety remain.

Finally, I can only assume that Obama's supporters cannot answer the simplest question - why him? - because they cannot afford to. They know, and we all know now, there is no answer. He's not better on the issues, he loses on the leadership front (he has shown no ability to lead without a large crowd and a teleprompter. There simple is no comparison between the 2 candidates on leadership. ) there is no contest when it comes to work ethic, and there is nothing in his history, once vetted, that indicates an ability to follow through and achieve stated goals. His experience - and there is some - adds up to mayor not President.

He can't win a campaign based on reality. His supporters know it so they avoid it.

One PS: whether it is now or in the fall - Rev. Wright and his connection to Obama will not go away. This is the defining event in this campaign. It defines him. He even says so. In print. The media has put up a protection shield around Obama and Wright- but it will be broken. If anything proves the unfairness of the media and the free ride Obama has gotten it is the Wright tapes.