Hmm. What is wrong with this picture? How many think the Secretary of State had no part whatsoever in this effort? Since she is only the nation's chief diplomat and the spouse of the guy who went to N.K.
Also: Kathleen Wynne lead us to this at RBO. Hillary was deeply involved in this deal...duh...even if the LAT and the WSJ insist on ignoring her role.
President Carter has left the Southern Baptist Convention.
At its most repugnant, the belief that women must be subjugated to the wishes of men excuses slavery, violence, forced prostitution, genital mutilation and national laws that omit rape as a crime. But it also costs many millions of girls and women control over their own bodies and lives, and continues to deny them fair access to education, health, employment and influence within their own communities.
The impact of these religious beliefs touches every aspect of our lives.
Freemenow has all the Letterman advertisers contact info listed here. I link it for this reason: If - for example - Jon Voight were making the rounds mocking the children of say...Joe Biden...in a blatantly bigoted way the alleged Left would be insane with rage. The fact that Letterman's continued jokes have to do with - there is no other word - rape- triples the fury that real liberals, - and conservatives, and libertarians, and all decent people should be expressing.
I repeat: The Left sold its soul last year utterly and completely - at a bargain rate I might add. What it got in trade was a confused, narcissistic, statist who doesn't give a shit about any "social justice" that might lower his poll ratings. The attack on gays in the military goes on with the help of his Justice department, mountains are being blown up in West Virginia, hundreds of civilians have been slaughtered by Obama approved drones in Pakistan.
Good call "liberals". Sure glad you "won." Boy Howdy, I'm glad that evil McCain/Palin ticket didn't win. Maybe then 43 mountains would be blown to hell and back and not just 42.
Let us call the Obama Pod People what they are finally and forever: fucking amoral morons.
The Left has castrated itself with eyes wide shut and a smile on its face - and yes, I get the irony of the male metaphor in this case.
During the course of 2008 the media and the Obamablogs made it perfectly acceptable for people who claimed to stand for "social justice" to attack, debase, insult, and degrade any woman they did not agree with. Mostly - but not exclusively, and let's be clear here, they insulted working class women. Which is why Palin - who could actually feed her family if she had to with a rifle and a knife and has no Ivy league degree on the wall - was such a juicy target for the Huffpo/Kos goons. The atmosphere of degradation was re-created last year during the mindless, sexist assault on Clinton.
Every bit of my belief system regarding true egalitarianism is now affronted by the Letterman debacle. The silence on most of the Left is grotesque. So where are they? The most disheartening truth may be that many women and men on the Left don't see any problem with the verbal assault on a 14 year old girl who happens to be the child of a conservative. Also please remember this: It is not merely about sexism - it is about class as well. It is open season on poor and middle class whites. If the economy continues to stagger the attacks on and demonization of the poor and middle class will increase.
The entire point of all progressive movements has been that everyone get a place at the table. This has now been completely submerged - if not destroyed. Which, of course, was probably the point of Soros creating Obama in the first place.
The Left attacked women last year with the glee of the racists who watched lynchings in the 1930s. An don't let the bogus "she's 18 now" excuse cloud the point. Sullivan and his ilk went nutters on Britol Palin when she was 17. Letterman's excuse that he meant the 18 year old Palin daughter and his appalling "apology" are despicable. He is either lying to get more Palin punching mileage in or is not man enough to own that the original vulgarity demanded that he make a sincere apology.
Again I repeat: It is not the Right that is lost. In fact, the Right has its bearings in hand. They are weakened now - but not lost. The "Left" is in power but utterly without a core. It is Left that is staggering.
Politico has - sort of - come clean. Obama is a thief and a fraud. What Chicago Slim has done is lie about his own agenda repeatedly and take Clinton's stances as his own. Gee, thanks for the tip, Politico.
President Obama is morphing into old rival Hillary Clinton
...(Obama) had a hard date for ending the war. Clinton repeatedly questioned the wisdom and sincerity of Obama's pledge to remove all combat troops from Iraq within 16 months of taking office. It was the biggest difference between the two candidates-and one of the top reasons Obama won the nomination.
I would argue BHO's Iraq lies were the main reason he garnered the Democratic support his did. All of those people were lied to. All of them.
We can argue about the reasons the DNC and the media gamed the process to ensure Obama got the nomination all we want. My opinion as to the main reason remains sexism. The only debate in my mind is whether sexism was the accelerant or the fire itself.
There were other elements in play to be sure. The Democratic elite's contempt for the Clintons (mirrored now by the GOP elite's contempt for Palin.) played a part. Nothing so satisfies the monkey brains on the Dean Left as much as a nice round of mindless Clinton bashing.
Additionally, race was used as a shiny toy flashed in front of the likes of Huffington and the MSNBC idiots. "Look he's Black!" Which was the modern version of "I'm not racist. I have black friends, I swear!"
But what under girded all of this was a bourgeois, largely unspoken and often unconscious fear of powerful women. I am sure Olbermann, Cafferty and Huffington don't think of themselves as bigots. But they are. It seeped through in broadcasts and posts throughout last year. "Bitch" was thrown about like confetti on Obamablogs. One has to wonder what would have happened if Obama had been referred to as a "spear chucker" on a Clinton blog. Even my visceral reaction to "spear chucker" is more pained and pronounced than it is to "bitch." Why? Both carry the same amount of vile meaning and stereotyping. I am as inured to the debasing of women as the next man. It is in the atmosphere of this culture. Sometimes it is the atmosphere.
It is still perfectly acceptable to attack a female politician by going after her gender. In fact, that is the first line of attack. Cold. Bitchy. Emotional. Whore. "Everyone's first wife." Obama even used "periodic" to imply Clinton was unstable. And on and on the Chris Matthews goombahs of the media elite went.
God Bless Hillary Clinton for fighting through. I mean that. God Bless Clinton.
I will never let up on this point. Clinton was better qualified, more honest (which is to say simply - she is honest and Barry is not) a real leader, and not a concocted brand spraying soothing lies across the land.
So John, you ask, if BHO has taken Clinton's stances what is the problem? The problem is - as it always has been - THE LIE. He was never vetted. He STILL hasn't been. He was not held to any of the standards Clinton was hammered with. His past was not questioned. His life was not questioned. To do so invited a scathing attack from the petulant media and Obama's Children of the Corn.
Obama was wheeled through the city gates as a great gift bestowed upon us. Once the battle was won out of the Obama Trojan Horse came Bush's policy on Iraq (Obama lied), the "brain" trust of Goldman Sachs, Rick Warren, Bush's bailout policy, phony "stress tests" for the banks, health care reform lead by the same people who created the mess, a coward on Gay rights, a "Constitutional scholar" who abrogates contracts that annoy him, a narcissist who won't or can't let another living soul take center stage even for a millisecond, and a tacky man who insults our closest allies.
Given the context of the times, Obama is not "historical" at all. He's run of the mill. Take away the "Obama show" we are force fed and the remainder of his Presidency so far is entirely expected. In fact, take the mind game a step further. Make BHO a white male in your mind's eye and play out his first 4 months. He becomes shatteringly mediocre. His race is still a bobble white liberals use to amuse themselves.
McCain would have passed a stimulus bill (smaller, but he still would have done it.) Clinton would have too. Any Democrat from Edwards to Richardson would be working on health care now. The fact that he is disinterested in and apologetic to a fault for American foreign policy should only shock the willfully moronic. Ditto for the Afghan policy. He's more conservative than Bush on the right of the Feds to intrude on privacy. Is this a surprise? It shouldn't be. He telegraphed it loudly last year by ditching FISA.
The "change" he promised is still in the form of a series of announcements. Anything that might remotely upset the status quo will remain in the form of an announcement. The Guantanamo "announcement" sounded good - except he forgot to form a policy before he went before the TV cameras. The "big change" in environmental policy is dying in the House as I type. The over the top fantasy budget WAS a bit unexpected but it is no where near becoming law so remains merely an announcement. His promises to gay Americans are lost in the Axelrod wilderness. 2 weeks ago he thumbed his nose at Armenians - apparently for sport.
The one big move I can say has surprised me a bit is his intrusion into Detroit. But I must follow quickly with - that intrusion is arrogant, and counter productive. His huffy attack on the hedge funds who want a fair deal and disregard for contractual law tells us much about the man's actual temperament.
This blog stated almost immediately that his "announcement" on torture was gamesmanship and would certainly end up being destructive. He will dodge this shot at his own foot only because Pelosi is an 8 on the hypocrite Richter scale and she has now run for cover.
I defy anyone to tell me what Obama has done so far that isn't either:
A. What any Democrat would have done. or B. Stupid.
He was handed the Democratic nomination in a Democratic year not because he was the best choice. He was handed the Democratic nomination in a Democratic year because he had a penis and his opponent did not.
Donna Darko has posted an invaluable resource for close Obama watchers and real liberals. (see, I included most everyone!) Obama averages one alarming act a dayis the name of her ongoing post.
Obama did something that should be alarming to progressives every day for the past 70 days. The articles below from January 15-March 25 are in reverse chronological order and the 70 acts are bolded and numbered. It's easy to find one each day. Taken together, it's staggering.
I suggest a perusal.
This brings me to my post for the night. A review of myself. I shall be biased. (Hard not to.)How have my assumptions about BHO worked out over the past year? I was never for Obama. I liked him after his 2004 Dem convention speech. I hoped he would stay in the Senate and get some needed experience. Further, I am a Clinton loyalist. That loyalty deepened and broadened during Hillary's campaign last year.
When it became apparent after Iowa last year that some very powerful people were pulling strings for Obama I began to look deeper - in the honest hope that I could get on board. As I've said 1000 times before: Looking closely at Obama is a disturbing avocation. The man is one of the cagiest politicians to appear in our history.
Quickly this blog took on some basic themes that I list below:
1. Obama is a fraud. 2. Obama ran a dirty campaign. This was co-signed, and egged on by a foolish, deceitful, biased media. 3. Obama did not/does not have the experience to be President. 4. Obama's campaign relied on sexism. 5. Obama would do great harm to the Democratic Party.
Further I asserted that something largely unforeseen would decide the election. (I stated this in August, early September.) By October, I predicted an Obama win to the distress of a number of readers.
So how do these bullet points look now?
Number 1: Obama is a fraud. There is excessive evidence to back this assertion up. His connection to the truth during the campaign was often nebulous. Asserting he chaired Senate committees that he had nothing to do with. Implying the Kennedy's were responsible for his father's arrival in the U.S. These are not tall tales. They are lies told to fit a fictitious narrative. I have also stated ad nasueum that Obama was misleading people on Iraq, based on a mysterious speech he gave many years ago that no one recorded.
This, too, has proven to be the case. Obama's stance on Iraq now is not discernible from Bush's post "surge" policy. He is less bellicose than W but the withdrawal is back loaded - and "dependent on the commanders on the ground". Sound familiar? We shall see. But "a brigade a month" starting in January of 2009 is long forgotten. Some have documented no less than 17 different Obama stances on Iraq. This issue, now largely over run by economic concerns, should not be forgotten as it was the motor of his campaign in the primaries. Clinton was routinely lambasted by Obots for stating she would do what Obama is now doing.
On other points his fraudulence has become more and more apparent over the last 12 months. I go back to some stand by instances to illustrate because they are major indicators of a man with no core. The FISA wiretapping and the Public Financing flip flops both go to core liberal principles. Obama's reversals here were the single most telling moments of his campaign. They go to his character. No liberal in their right mind should have tolerated these betrayals. Yet, the hand jobs from the faux Left continued. I won't repeat my feelings about the "hope and change" horseshit except to say it is clearer everyday that it was horseshit.
3. Obama did not/does not have the experience to be President. After many promises to "hit the ground running" Obama's first legislative accomplishment happened not on "day one" but Day 25. And it was a mess that got 3 GOP votes. The banking plan did not appear until this week. He made outright fools of all of us with his treatment of the The Browns. I have no doubt that he's smart enough to learn on the job - but that is not what he promised. 4. Obama's campaign relied on sexism. Duh. If you still do not see this you are willfully in denial. Enjoy it. But know your sisters, mothers, and daughters will pay for last year's regression into bigotry for a very long time.
Obama and his media cheerleaders were nothing short of disgusting. No, we should not "get over it" any more than Black Americans should forget Strom Thurmond's 1948 campaign for President. 5. Obama would do great harm to the Democratic Party. After 2 months the GOP is now running ahead of the Democrats in generic "party" polls. This is astounding given the last 3 years. I did not think the reversal would happen so quickly. It may reverse again. The GOP is hardly attractive. Nevertheless, Obama has shown no stomach for a fight on basic progressive ideals. What will be sunk before this is over is liberal ideals and liberal ideas. For a generation. This assertion depends on time. But the votes are coming in. Noam Chomsky, Paul Krugman and Howard Zinn have all blasted Obama from the Left already. In varying areas these three men understand one thing: Obama has, and will continue to, betray the Left.
On the other points: The financial collapse was unforeseen by some. It did come as a shock to the majority and it did decide the election.
One last "out on a limb" prediction I made: Obama would fall below 50% in the polls by June. I'd probably go with September now if I had a do over.
I want to take a moment to post my thoughts on the recent conversation about PUMAs here. I work best with lists so here goes.
1. I support the PUMA movement in general. I never got fully involved last summer for a number of reasons:
A. I listened in on a few conference calls and felt I did not have much to add, and further felt there was no particular focus.
B. My hunch was then that Obama was all but assured of both the nomination and the election. Not 100% - things could have broken another way. But the PUMA movement did not seem to be aware of the real power involved in anointing Obama. There was a lot of rat a tat tat about writing super delegates etc (which may not have come directly from PUMAs but it was out there.). This was - to me - self evidently a waste of time. The system did not "fail to work and demand correction" it was over run and blown up. Donna B. said it: "We don't need you" The cold truth is, come November, she was right. Because of the lack of focus, PUMAs either sucked it up and voted for Obama or, voted for Palin but not in numbers that made a difference.
Obama was decided on a long, long time ago and, frankly, the plan to install him, in retrospect, was only hampered by Clinton's refusal to leave the race. For this, and almost this alone, I went from being a supporter to a deeply loyal follower. She became a hero of mine by refusing to roll over. This refusal has worked out very well for her. It made her a political leader and raised her standing with all Americans. Though the powers that be refused to let her have the prize she clearly earned - she did, in fact, win in some ways.
At any rate, the PUMAs never seemed to come to terms with the actions that might have made a difference. That being: start a third party, or focus on states they might have swung, or create a concerted effort to go after the core problem: the media - which as we know pushed the myth of Obama at every turn and trashed Palin with the same sexist glee it had Hillary. By "going after" I mean protests. In the streets. Not letter writing or blogging.
So I supported the PUMAs from a distance. With some hope, but not much expectation.
2. My unsentimental education in 2008 was all about sexism. I knew it was real. I knew it to be a core problem. What I did not understand was its depth in American culture. I am sure many women did. I did not. It did not occur to me that Clinton being female was an issue before MSNBC and the rest visibly came unhinged. Naive, I know. Uppity posted a comment here last year I shall never forget. It was something to the effect that it is not that women can't have some jobs men do - it is that a woman can't have THAT job. It strips all the mediocre men who've been elevated unfairly of their cover. I pondered that for a long while - and began to see the coverage of Clinton - mostly by men - but not always - through that lens and much more made sense. Mathews and Olbermann were only the most obvious in their female terror.
I make this point about sexism because it was new to me. I did not learn anything new about power in 2008. I have always assumed we get a few choices that are limited and the game is to get behind the best of the predetermined choices. There is a reason why some people of equal intelligence are dismissed out of hand before they open their mouths. They are not in the pre chosen circle. (Ron Paul has very interesting ideas that many more people would agree with if he was ever heard. He's not. There is a reason he's not.) I sincerely thought - at the outset - that Clinton was the best of these and did not care about her gender and stupidly thought most others did not either. Wow, was I wrong. The Daily Kos was a cavalcade of misogyny for months.
The powers behind Obama did not become evident until later. Though Obama had a base, it was nowhere near the majority of Democrats until the power players kicked in. False racism accusations removed a large chunk of Clinton's natural base with Black voters. Florida, Michigan, etc. Even then, he did not win. Caucus fraud and the media pushed him to the finish. The subtext of most negative reporting on Clinton was sexism. And "liberals" were the lead dogs. Ambition for a man: good and strong. Ambition for a woman: bitchy. Etc. Etc. An unsentimental education for this liberal indeed.
What I came to understand is that sexism is potent. Much more potent that I understood. Sadly, sometimes it was women who offended the most. Randi "fucking whore" Rhodes for example. But the "liberal" males who joined in or stood by are the biggest moral criminals in my book. By October is was self evident that mainstream Conservatives were more open to strong women than left wing alleged feminists.
With that I'll say: I'd put myself on the line as a feminist any day. I blogged repeatedly about how interesting the Palin phenom was - though I disagreed with most of her politics. Far from being an outlier - she was and is a superb example of feminism in action. No money, no family name - just determination and ambition.
3. And this is not contradictory in my book: I do not want PUMAs to become solely a "women's movement". I DO want it to focus a substantial amount of energy on the promotion of women's rights and to take the lead in addressing issues that many women are concerned with. But not to the exclusion of others.
I thought Tamerlane had some harsh but good points to make and I welcomed them. I also welcome a rebuttal. I am not of big fan of allegedly "polite society". Getting a bit rough is okay by me. Esp in the safe forum of a blog. We are not in a bar. No one can throw a real punch. One person's opinion that PUMAs may have become too focused in a certain direction should not scare anyone.
Yell back.
The "N" word, the "C" word, and death threats are off limits for ethical reasons. The drippiest pro Obama comments are too- but that is just my personal preference - it is my blog after all.
I did have some discomfort about the word "coven". In the end I found it no more insulting than my attacks on Olbermann's "mommy issues". It is insulting. I am insulting sometimes. This blog is not a tea party.
Tamerlane did start a conversation. A pretty unpleasant one apparently. But "pleasant" is not the goal. I am glad to report that people here are not cowards about sexism or racism.
I sincerely hope the PUMA movement becomes a large spring board. We are in trouble. Real trouble. Another way must be found. But it is not required. We could just sink. Country's do it rather often. Dems are taking us for a wild ride that I suspect we will live to regret. Soon. The GOP is utterly lost - and if they do revive I shudder at the prospect of their "ideas" and their leaders (except Palin, believe it or not. I don't agree with her, but I trust her). The prospect of a very negative "movement" erupting in the next few years is painfully real. We are not immune from demagogues that would make Obi's prancing and primping look quaint.
There is still an opportunity here. The PUMAs who are, lets be honest, cast offs, could - COULD be a group that emerges to lead. But if PUMAs get stuck in any victimology, all is lost.
Being rudely untethered from our "home" in the Democratic party is not a problem. It is an opportunity. Turns out the home was dysfunctional with a capital dys.
The end of the year is nigh: Who should win the first annual Liberal Rapture SEXIST OF THE YEAR AWARD!!!???
*Vote Here:
*Winner to be announced sometime after the majicjack St. Petersburg Bowl but before the Papajohns.com Bowl - depending on how close JSOM gets to gouging his eyes with a spork out of frustration that there is no playoff system in college football - Afterall we need to keep up grand America traditions like the Chic Fil-A Bowl!
The Jon Favreau pic is making the rounds on the blogs - and causing a stir. The story has "legs". Some are very upset - some not so much. To me the words "Obama Staff" on the other bloke's shirt are the damning part of the photo. Those two words in that one shot encapsulate everything that was sickening about Obama's rise. Arrogant privileged punks...these two...michelle...william ayres...all birds of a feather...
I am going to keep watching the doings in Alaska for the next few years. There is a desperate desire to keep women out of ultimate power among the unseen hand that seems to pick our Presidents. Not sure why. Mommy issues? (mine are expressed by being attracted to strong women, not afraid...'nother story...) Old boys club and accompanying insecurity? Probably. The "unseen hand" men don't feel they can trust women to do the "right" (read as"wrong") things - they might just act with a female sensibility sometimes??? - This fear is routinely expressed with hormone and "on the rag" jokes.
Women's rights and Gay rights hit a high water mark and a low ebb in 2008. Liberals not consumed by the Obama show (which is to say real liberals) need to reinvest in both these movements now.
Like Palin's politics or not, Camile Paglia has it right - she is a very good sign for feminism - though many old guard feminists are too ossified to see it.
I am posting the ad below not because I endorse Palin as a candidate. I don't. I am almost certainly going to vote Green. However, the shafting of Palin by a biased propaganda machine usually referred to as the "media" has been severe and harsh. The way both Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin have been treated should be of concern to real liberals. The attempt to diminish Palin has been overt. This is classic sexism. Women are not taken as seriously as men. Hence the continuing difference in pay rates. Any way to exploit this lingering stereotype is amplified.
Palin did not help her cause by bumbling at least 3 interviews. But this is a matter of style not substance. Handling a confrontational interview is a learned skill. Given her new appearance on the national scene it should have been expected that she would not be good at it. The fact is Biden is a routinely a disaster in this context. His idiocies are ignored by the media. (When asked about ACORN yesterday Biden lied at least 3 times within a minute.)
The mocking of Palin is analogous to Amos and Andy in the 1930' and 40's. A riff on a stereotype meant to play off the degradation an entire group of second class citizens.
Palin is a relatively new Governor, but she is accomplished and daring. She is more accomplished than BHO by a large margin. I may not agree with some of what she has promoted but she is an effective Executive.
I will not vote for her ticket for policy reasons. Still, it is clear her treatment by the media has been bigoted and nasty.
So, According to Politico, Congregational insiders are griping about Obama. He has not been helpful. Or whatever. Duh. Christ all mighty, were any of these people paying attention during the primaries? It was about him and only him 24/7.
Frankly, I don't much blame him for ignoring congress. Neighborhood dogs who dump on other people's lawns and bark all night are more popular than the Pelosi/Reid Congress. If I wanted to win I would not go near these people either.
Let's state this as clearly as possible because it is a place where the sexism of this campaign is deeply embedded:
1. Candidates running for President who are winning the largest, most important Democratic states consistently have no business quitting the race. After a weak start, Clinton ran an incredibly strong primary campaign that got more powerful with each passing day. Obama's stagnated after February. The schedule these people are referring to only exists in the mind of Axlerod, Brazile, and Dean.
2. The idea that she should "quit now" started right after Iowa with Jonathan Alter's asinine critique in Newsweek. It was amplified by the media after every Clinton victory. Notice the last word please. During Clinton's string of caucus losses in February the "she should quit now" meme actually died down. Then, on cue, and bizarrely, it ramped up again after her landslide win in Ohio and victory in Texas. It ramped up again after Clinton destroyed Obama in Pennsylvania. The only "schedule" for Clinton to exit was Obama's and the media's. Not Clinton's and certainly not the voters'.
3. The complaint that "they are behind schedule" because of Clinton is EXACTLY the kind of sexism that has gone unreported on this year. There was no reason for Clinton to drop out. She suspended her campaign at the point that it made sense.
I know I just said the same thing 3 times. But is needs repeating. There was no coordinated rush by the media to see Reagan drop out in 1976 or Kennedy in 1980, or McCain in 2000. All these men were in much weaker positions in those years than Clinton was in this one.
The difference is obvious. Gender.
Get the harpie off the stage. That's what was on the "schedule".
The subtext of all the "get out now" bile from Olbermann to Huffington, to the legions of numb skulls on Kos, to Cafferty, to Alter, to Dowd, to Frank Rich, to Randi Rhodes, to Dick Morris was bigotry toward a strong female candidate. BIGOTRY. If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck... and yes, I am saying Maureen Dowd is a sexist bigot - whether she knows it or not. Nothing seems to rattle women of faux accomplisment like Dowd and Huffington as much as a woman of real accomplishment.
Finally - the compulsion by the Obama people is to blame Clinton. But it is not her fault Obama could not close the deal. It's his.
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 Clintonis 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.
This one can't wait. Thanks Molly! Send this video far and wide! Olbermann, The dailykos, Huffington, Matthews, the huge majority of the media HAS BEEN BLATANTLY SEXIST. I have been saying this here for over a year. The real story is not "race" it is "gender". The story of the television lynching of Hillary Clinton is all about men mad at their mothers, men afraid of they don't measure up and the women who sign off on their Bullshit Checks. (Someone needs to write: Olbermann on the Couch) Boycott Olbermann and the rest! (no one deserves to be thrown on the ash heap of broadcast and net history more than Olbermann and the vicious Stalinists at the DailyKos.)
