Please, cheer me up. She seems just to have completely caved. What has she told you? I was sure that she would have responded personally and taken prompt action.
This is too depressing. Tell me some way that your guy has a chance.
DABbio
(No longer a Democrat)
for McCain
On Jun 4, 2008, at 8:36 AM, Jon wrote:
Just saw this (No I did not watch the speech. The Brewers were busy knocking out Randy Johnson, 7-1. Prince is on his game again, and the pitching is really coming round.) Anyway, from Obama peroration.
“I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.”
Good God. Can't he just promise us a chicken in every pot and be done with it? He's going to stop the sea levels from rising?!! Who does he think he is, King Canute? As Bob Dylan put it, "Freedom just around the corner from you. But with truth so far off, what good will it do?" Confidence Man has arrived.
Jon
On June 3, 2008, DABbio wrote:
Subject: Re: Hillary, not really a Democrat anyway.
As the depressing news breaks out here in Armenia, with the dawn, boy, do I agree with Eliot. As well as Jon. This all deserves blogging-- somewhere else besides my blog, where it will lie buried for millions of years like the obelisk in 2001.
On Jun 4, 2008, at 1:57 AM, crankytrucker wrote:
I'll bet that some part of Hillary is fed up with the Democratic clique. They've given her and all the moderates in the party the bum's rush and she should return the favor.
Do a Lieberman and run as an Independent.
I know that all the liberal elite would accuse her of playing the dreaded "spoiler", but fuck them. If it's good enough for baseball why should she have to lie down and hand dysfunctional Democratic apparatchik's a league title? I don't believe Obama has a chance anyway, and I'd imagine Hillary must know this too.
This country is in dire need of a centrist party with clout which she could deliver. In the likely event she ended up with more votes then Obama in November that would really stick it to Edwards & Co. Its not like she has much of a future with this current version of a neo-socialist Democratic Party.
First things first though, she needs to kick Bill and his cronies out of the house (which she should've done right after he left office), get on her best pants suit, take Chelsea out on a shoestring barnstorming tour and show her supporters she really believes in herself. The money will come.
The last thing in the world she should do is kowtow and play a running mate role or stand up at the convention and embarrass herself.
Just do it!
On June 3, 2008, DABbio wrote:
Subject: Re: Raise a Glass to Hillary
Excellent letter of yours, as usual, and good article by Jennifer Rubin, Jon. It is all pretty sad, but things generally have the stamp of inevitable decline written all over them, and Obamamania was just one symptom. Only place I disagree is that I think that Hillary's defeat spells no good news for McCain, even though Obama is a fatter target.
Especially when you couple it with what I am convinced, despite your economic optimism, is an oncoming depression, which will deprive John McCain of his chance too. No Republican is going to be able to win against any Democrat this November,* as I have been saying all along, which is why I was so partisan for Hillary. And subconsciously, it may also have been a contributing factor in the Republicans' mixed feelings about Hillary. They too sense that a Democrat is going to win, no matter how well the war is going, no matter how many dark clouds Obama finds hanging over him, because it's the economy y'all. Not that Obama is any less of a jerk about the economy than McCain. It's just the Republicans well earned reputation for fiddling while Rome burns. Which reminds me, where did Greenspan go. There ought to be a movie made about that supreme conman of the 20th century. That is what he was, and that is ALL he ever was. I felt it at the time, but never had the guts to say it.
What I have been trying to get you to understand is that the underlying statistics are not only all bad-- there are not any silver linings, and the article here The Mean Season leaves out even some of the dark clouds, such as the lowest consumer confidence index on record--but the interaction among them is toxic, as it is in any complex ecosystem. There are just too many huge instabilities in this enormous system for the usual positive feedback loops to act as the gyroscope that they would in ordinary times. I do expect to see oil come back down as the economy spirals down; unfortunately, the spiral will by then have too much momentum.
Such a situation spells doom for the Republicans. Frankly, I cannot sympathize with them much either. Their culture of easy money, Ayn Randian selfishness, and laissez-faire anti-government and anti-regulatory attitude-- as is implied even by the rock ribbed Republicans quoted in "The Mean Season" article cited above, now too late chastened about the need to regulate this nautrally but insanely selfish and humongeous economy-- have played a big part-- not the major part, but a big part-- in the spin-out of the USA. Please don't tell me how things are OK in the mid-west. They're not any longer, and the mid-West is small economically speaking.
The major part of the spin-out, from this ecologist's point of view, was really 63 years of relative peace--NO ONE's fault-- and the illusion that competition has somehow been eliminated from the story of the survival of species (and sub-species, like believers in the Enlightenment); that softened things up more quickly than one might have anticipated, although I've anticipated it since about 1952. But that's another story.
Love,
D
Democrats for McCain
* (1) Only caveat: Perhaps there are some emergency levers, like printing money, that Bush & Co. can pull to keep the economy afloat until November. That may allow McCain to sneak in. After him the deluge, which will be even broader and deeper due to any such extreme "salvage" measures. (2) I will be so happy to be foolishly wrong on my prediction that the Republicans are doomed this November. I am really just as fearful as you of an Obama presidency.
On Jun 3, 2008, at 8:54 AM, Jon wrote:
I expect I am the only real conservative in this particular group. Hence as a point of clarification, now that Hillary appears ready to bow out (I hope only "suspend," but it may really be over), I would like to share the Contentions Blog entry (see below), by Jennifer Rubin whose running commentary on this race has been among the best things out there.
I do this because I am sure there are those among you who think conservatives only have backed Hillary for the fun of watching the Dems eat each other. Absolutely that has been a part of it. But the YouTube clip I sent yesterday showed a female Democratic delegate I would be willing to bet every Republican I know of would accept as an honorable and honest opponent, one with whom mutual respect would be possible. One in the grand tradtion of American politics in which the most fundamental principle is split the difference and fight another day. That tradition is dying. Eight years of the ugliest and most irrational hate-fest directed at a current president (and that includes Nixon) that I have lived through has placed it in mortal danger. In my opinion Obama will perpetuate all of this horribly. For all his preening and phony humbleness, he has shown utter contempt for all "ordinary" politicians (to say nothing of ordinary citizens), even those in his own party. He really does think he is something new. He is a true believer who has never in his brief political life EVER actually reached across any isle, but is now arrogant enough to claim he will bring us all together. No politician I know of better sums up what drove me from left to right to begin with.
So I agree with Jennifer Rubin here in every detail. Hillary in fighting this fight, whether because she came to believe it or simply because she had to to survive, moved to a stance in defence of ordinary America, of the unchanged, unchanging and (for any Obamiacs among you) not needing to be changed, basic America. For that, I am as Rubin says here, honestly grateful. In a McCain-Hillary campaign, I would still fight vigorously for McCain. But I would remain confident no matter what. I will not with Obama. I do not know him. Not a bit -- nor do you. I certainly cannot comprehend his ability to tolerate (even if he does not "agree" with) the totalitarian and/or racist fury of Wright, Pflegler, Ayers, Dohrn, and (yet to be explored) ACORN, and who knows whom else? I do not trust his Saul Alinsky/New Left community organizing mentality and his radical social engineering bent, to say nothing of that of his wife. I will still probably sleep fine at night, but only for this reason: America designed its system so magnificently that it would take a million Obamas or more to shift it noticeably off its unchanging indifference to mere word-masters and ideologues. American will grind up Obama long before he grinds up America. That will be my consolation. In the meantime, here's a toast to Hillary. She's fought the good fight and I hope she's got some fight left.
Jon
Hillary, We Hardly Knew You
commentarymagazine.com - Contentions
Hillary Clinton’s campaign may end today. It may end tomorrow. But it will end soon enough. It has been an improbable journey for her, from inevitable to impossible. But the journey for many Republicans observing the Democratic primary has been just as strange.
She began the campaign, from the Republicans’ perspective, as the villainess, like movie character brought back from a prior film with a slightly different look but every bit as maddening and as scary. The cackle! The smarmy sidekick Bill! And that cloying campaign announcement! It all seemed painfully familiar. But slowly things changed. It is no secret that she got a much friendlier reception and fairer treatment from the conservative than the liberal media. Both in public and private Republicans shook their heads, admitting that she had, well, grown on them. What happened?
Yes, there was an element of mischief-making in some Republicans rooting her on, the most widely known aspect being Rush Limbaugh’s “Operation Chaos.” And sure, it was fun for Republicans to see the Democratic race drag on and on and on, as the Democrats attacked and villified one another. But there was something more.
Hillary became the sane one in the race, at least from Republicans’ perspective. She was the one who looked at George Stephanopoulos with a look of incredulity when he questioned why she would threaten to blow Iran to smithereens if Iran nuked Israel. When Obama defamed religious and gun-owning Americans she objected, reminding the Democratic party for a brief interval that people loved their faith because . . . they loved their faith. And when Obama offered that raising the payroll tax cap on those making $102K would affect only the “rich,” it was Hillary who said, “That’s not rich!” Most strikingly, it was she and her campaign who did object, and object strenuously, to Obama’s plan for direct, unconditonal talks with rogue state leaders. And she even withstood her fellow Democrats’ barbs for voting to classify the Iranian National Guard as a terrorist organization.
Some might question her authenticity on some of these issues, but whether or not she truly believed it all, her articulated views were often the least crazy thing coming out of the Democratic race on any given day. What’s more she was getting clobbered, unfairly and personally nearly every day in the race by Obama’s media cheerleaders who disclaimed much if any interest in reporting the race objectively. Republicans could relate to that.
And let’s face it: Republicans are not always the hippest folks in the crowd. They tend to frown on the excesses of popular culture and Hollywood fads in particular. So when he became the darling of the fashionable and she, the awkward middle-aged gal, rolled her eyes at Obama girls–again, Republicans could relate.
So it is a good thing, perhaps, for John McCain that she lost: what started out as an idle threat or joke (”I’ll vote for Hillary over McCain!”) among the conservative base became a distinct possibility for some Republicans, and certainly many conservative Independents.
Looking back, few would have thought eighteen months ago that Hillary would lose. And fewer still would have thought some Republicans would be sorry to see it.
Thursday, June 05, 2008
Friday, May 16, 2008
Still more Obamamanianalysis
Jon writes:
Meanwhile, this is vastly less creative [than "Hillary's Downfall;" see link below --Ed.], but just as hilarious in its own way...
...This man, who has been bashing Bush for 18 months: "the old politics," "the tired old Washington politics," "the politics of fear and division," etc., ad naseaum, etc, now has the audacity to criticize Bush for a charge of "appeasement" that MAY have been directed at Obama. Given Obama's documentable, undeniable, and many times repeated offer to conduct presidential talks without preconditions with anyone, I guess the shoe fit. In fact, Bush might well have meant the shoe for Jimmy Carter -- who Obama himself actually criticized, because with finger in the wind (new politics style, of course) he knows he must.
As Newt Gingrich pointed out, had Obama not been as thin-skinned as a naked clam, and a lot stupider than he is given credit for, he could have just said, "I absolutely agree with the president and I said as much about Jimmy Carter's disgraceful kiss on the cheek of Hamas." But no, Obama's instinctive response is to go hyper-defensive ballistic about his defeatism in the very act of denying it. Of course, maybe he is not quite so dumb, and the game here is, aside from Obama's precious self-infatuation, that he thinks he can use this incident to go after Bush and then tie McCain to Bush over it. Why he wants to do that by calling screaming attention to his own worst political stance to date is beyond me. Maybe he really does think the public is as defeatest as he is. I hope he is not right, though I have my own doubts from time to time, I have to admit.
Meanwhile, this is vastly less creative [than "Hillary's Downfall;" see link below --Ed.], but just as hilarious in its own way...
...This man, who has been bashing Bush for 18 months: "the old politics," "the tired old Washington politics," "the politics of fear and division," etc., ad naseaum, etc, now has the audacity to criticize Bush for a charge of "appeasement" that MAY have been directed at Obama. Given Obama's documentable, undeniable, and many times repeated offer to conduct presidential talks without preconditions with anyone, I guess the shoe fit. In fact, Bush might well have meant the shoe for Jimmy Carter -- who Obama himself actually criticized, because with finger in the wind (new politics style, of course) he knows he must.
As Newt Gingrich pointed out, had Obama not been as thin-skinned as a naked clam, and a lot stupider than he is given credit for, he could have just said, "I absolutely agree with the president and I said as much about Jimmy Carter's disgraceful kiss on the cheek of Hamas." But no, Obama's instinctive response is to go hyper-defensive ballistic about his defeatism in the very act of denying it. Of course, maybe he is not quite so dumb, and the game here is, aside from Obama's precious self-infatuation, that he thinks he can use this incident to go after Bush and then tie McCain to Bush over it. Why he wants to do that by calling screaming attention to his own worst political stance to date is beyond me. Maybe he really does think the public is as defeatest as he is. I hope he is not right, though I have my own doubts from time to time, I have to admit.
Hillary's Downfall
Warning: X-rated for blue language and gratuitous offense to various minority groups. Otherwise, listed on my top 10 funniest videos.
With a tip of the hat to Stephen Bloom for bringing it to my attention.
With a tip of the hat to Stephen Bloom for bringing it to my attention.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
The Right-Wing Attack Machine Reporting In
Regarding Glen Greenwald's Great American Hypocrites, I admit it, this is me alright...
"most have dodged military duty, have strings of broken marriages and affairs, and live decadent, elitist lives, which they so ruthlessly condemn Democrats for doing."
Well, only one broken marriage, actually, but I did dodge the draft (sort of) and I am surely decadent (love those Culver's malts) and elitist (I am reading three books at once now, ain't that somethin'?). But if we Republicans are to be condemned for leading "decadent, elitist lives" now, does this mean this anti-Republican agrees with us that these are not good things? Or is he praising us, as in "hypocrisy is the complement vice pays to virtue"?
Seriously, what does any of this have to do with anything? I love it that this blurb, after spewing out the usual litany of ad hominem attacks on GOPers, tells us it's the GOP that is letting its "time-tested marketing ploy spin itself silly while avoiding debate on real issues." What issues does the blurb ask us not to avoid? I must have missed those.
This GOP attack machine line of attack lately has taken on truly preposterous dimensions, given that the anti-Hillary left has employed all the "time-tested" invective against the Clintons that the Republicans ever manufactured, plus a LOT more and a LOT worse invective all of its own making. Or am I missing something, and it is actually true that the "right-wing propaganda machine" (god I wish there were one) really does exist and really has taken over Daily Kos, Huffington Post, Moveon.org and all the other actual and really existing expletive manufacturing hate machines?
"most have dodged military duty, have strings of broken marriages and affairs, and live decadent, elitist lives, which they so ruthlessly condemn Democrats for doing."
Well, only one broken marriage, actually, but I did dodge the draft (sort of) and I am surely decadent (love those Culver's malts) and elitist (I am reading three books at once now, ain't that somethin'?). But if we Republicans are to be condemned for leading "decadent, elitist lives" now, does this mean this anti-Republican agrees with us that these are not good things? Or is he praising us, as in "hypocrisy is the complement vice pays to virtue"?
Seriously, what does any of this have to do with anything? I love it that this blurb, after spewing out the usual litany of ad hominem attacks on GOPers, tells us it's the GOP that is letting its "time-tested marketing ploy spin itself silly while avoiding debate on real issues." What issues does the blurb ask us not to avoid? I must have missed those.
This GOP attack machine line of attack lately has taken on truly preposterous dimensions, given that the anti-Hillary left has employed all the "time-tested" invective against the Clintons that the Republicans ever manufactured, plus a LOT more and a LOT worse invective all of its own making. Or am I missing something, and it is actually true that the "right-wing propaganda machine" (god I wish there were one) really does exist and really has taken over Daily Kos, Huffington Post, Moveon.org and all the other actual and really existing expletive manufacturing hate machines?
Right, I think we should put a Stetson on Hillary and get her on a horse
packing a six shooter over her pants suit!
Clinging indeed.
From my liberal anonymous friend:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/05/14/tarantella/print.html
packing a six shooter over her pants suit!
Clinging indeed.
From my liberal anonymous friend:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/05/14/tarantella/print.html
Great American Hypocrites
Toppling the Big Myths of Republican Politics
Written by Glenn Greenwald
Published by Crown
ABOUT THIS BOOK
A takedown of the GOP’s deceitful propaganda machine from the hugely popular blogger of Salon.com’s
Long since Americans were wooed by images of Ronald Reagan astride a horse, complete with cowboy hat and rugged good looks, the Republican Party has used a John Wayne mythology to build up its candidates and win elections. Their marketing scheme of evoking brave, courageous, heroic warriors has been so persuasive and strikes such a patriotic nerve, that many citizens have voted based on this manipulative imagery even when they’ve flat out disagreed with the GOP’s positions on key issues.
Glenn Greenwald puts this bogus GOP mythology under microscopic critique and successfully argues that none of these men is, in fact, a brave, strong moral warrior—far from it. Rather, most have dodged military duty, have strings of broken marriages and affairs, and live decadent, elitist lives, which they so ruthlessly condemn Democrats for doing. Such false archetypes—that GOP leaders are exclusively fit to command the military, represent traditional family values, and are fiscally restrained and responsible because they’re just regular folk like us—are so firmly entrenched in our culture as to allow the GOP to sit back and let their time-tested marketing ploy spin itself silly while avoiding debate on real issues. When they actually do voice opinions, it’s nothing more than a smear campaign of the supposed weakness and elitism of the Democrats.
To prevent this tired marketing scheme from succeeding again, Greenwald takes off the gloves and knocks down the hoaxes and myths, exposing the tactics the right-wing machine uses to drown out both reality and consideration of real issues. But he also calls on Democrats to shake off the defensive posture (“We love
The first book to dissect the Republican Cult of Personality and leave it openly exposed in its unabashed, shameful depravity, Great American Hypocrites is a deeply necessary call-out to Democrats to attack the GOP with their competitor’s very own weapons.
Ever since the cowboy image of Ronald Reagan was sold to Americans, the Republican Party has used the same John Wayne imagery to support its candidates and take elections. We all know how they govern, but
the right-wing propaganda machine is very adept at hijacking debate
and marketing their candidates as effectively as the Marlboro Man.
For example:
Myth: The Republican nominee is an upstanding, regular guy who shares the values of the common man.
Reality: He divorced his first wife in order to marry a young multimillionaire heiress whose family then funded his political career.
Myth: Republicans are brave and courageous.
Reality: It’s a party filled with chicken hawks and draft dodgers.
Myth: Republicans are strong on defense and will keep us safe.
Reality: They prey on fears, and their endless wars make
Myth: The Republicans are the party of fiscal restraint and small, limited
government.
Reality: Soaring deficits, unchecked presidential power, and an increasingly invasive surveillance state are par for their course.
About the Author
GLENN GREENWALD is a former constitutional law attorney and now a contributing writer at Salon. His political reporting and analysis have appeared in the New York Times, the
McCain's Climate Cave
An email I just sent to BMI (Business Media Institute) on a piece they did on McCain's global climate change statements. Then I sent it to the McCain people themselves.
BMI
I wish the McCain people would realize how bone-headed their approach to the global warming issue is.
First of all, it is coming at a point where the case for global warming alarmism is collapsing badly, both due to research and due to the turn in the climate itself since 1998 -- which perhaps people in Arizona do not notice but we in Wisconsin ALL NOTICE.
Secondly, his efforts are a pander that the right will revile (I certainly do) and the independents and liberals will also see through completely as a pander. Why? Because they (the liberals) know in their heads, if not in their hearts, that NONE of the crackpot ideas floated so far about climate change will work one iota to change the climate, no matter whether its ups and downs otherwise are themselves a problem or not. I mean does McCain actually think the left is SERIOUS in its calls for draconian change to change the climate? He might start by wondering how it is any of them even knows what the right climate is, let alone how to get it. Then he might consider truly ludicrous nonsense such as John McCartney getting a hybrid Lexus for his enviro self-esteem but then going ballistic because it was airlifted to him. My point: None of them, absolutely none of them, is SERIOUS. And so when John McCain pretends to be, they know he is pretending, just as they know THEY are pretending. So they see his current game as his effort to fool them and even to mock them. I wish they were right. I hope they are right. Please tell McCain to send me a message back telling me they are right. He's only joking. No? Please.
Oh, well, pardon me. I have to leave now to go put some ethanol in my tank and starve a few more Third Worlders.
Jonathan Burack
BMI
I wish the McCain people would realize how bone-headed their approach to the global warming issue is.
First of all, it is coming at a point where the case for global warming alarmism is collapsing badly, both due to research and due to the turn in the climate itself since 1998 -- which perhaps people in Arizona do not notice but we in Wisconsin ALL NOTICE.
Secondly, his efforts are a pander that the right will revile (I certainly do) and the independents and liberals will also see through completely as a pander. Why? Because they (the liberals) know in their heads, if not in their hearts, that NONE of the crackpot ideas floated so far about climate change will work one iota to change the climate, no matter whether its ups and downs otherwise are themselves a problem or not. I mean does McCain actually think the left is SERIOUS in its calls for draconian change to change the climate? He might start by wondering how it is any of them even knows what the right climate is, let alone how to get it. Then he might consider truly ludicrous nonsense such as John McCartney getting a hybrid Lexus for his enviro self-esteem but then going ballistic because it was airlifted to him. My point: None of them, absolutely none of them, is SERIOUS. And so when John McCain pretends to be, they know he is pretending, just as they know THEY are pretending. So they see his current game as his effort to fool them and even to mock them. I wish they were right. I hope they are right. Please tell McCain to send me a message back telling me they are right. He's only joking. No? Please.
Oh, well, pardon me. I have to leave now to go put some ethanol in my tank and starve a few more Third Worlders.
Jonathan Burack
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
More Obamamanianalysis
On May 14, 2008, at 8:29 PM, Evansen, Russell G wrote:
What is most galling to me is watching how the MSM has so thoroughly interjected itself into this whole political process, to the point where supposed “journalists” now take it for granted that they are charged with letting everyone know who will be the nominee and the next president – no matter what those annoying voters choose to do or believe. The talking heads of the Sunday chat shows and the insipid morning programs (“After the break we’ll discuss Hillary’s impact on the pantsuit industry – but first, what’s the latest on Miley Cyrus? We sent an investigative team to find out!”) have decided that we all need Obama the Healer to save us from ourselves, and they will brook no argument. This thing is OVER, they declare – so stop your stupid voting!!! Don’t you know that a bunch of elitist party hacks are going to decide this for you? Can’t you see that they are far wiser than you?
You’d think the fact that the Democrats’ hopelessly broken nominating system has yet again found a way to select the party’s most far left liberal candidate to be their November standard-bearer might give someone pause (Hello, Howard Dean? Do you recall George McGovern, or Walter Mondale, or Michael Dukakis, or John Kerry?). But let nothing stand in the way of the fairy tale that is “post-racial, post-partisan” Obama – certainly not those vulgar Clintons. The Dems are done with them, and now it’s time for them to begin the more acceptable former-first couple career of meddling in foreign affairs and writing fatuous books about how conservatives are bringing about the apocalypse.
Russ
From: Jon Burack [mailto:JBKburack@charter.net]
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 8:50 AM
David,
I was pleased to see the utter repudiation of Obama in W. Va., but I fear it will not deter the Obama juggernaut. I mean Obama's already explained it all -- those yokels are bitter and the victims of false consciousness. I do not know the answer about what happens after a first ballot, but it looks to me like the Democrats are determined not to let there be more than one. I also am not yet seeing that this fight is, as David says, "sharpening the focus on real issues" for Democrats. It might do that if the two candidates were the least bit clear about what the issues are and what they believe.
As for "corporate conglomerates or the mass media," a lot could be said. I just don't see what the "self-interest" is of either the conglomerates or the media intelligentsia in the choice between Obama and Hillary, or even McCain for that matter. No matter who wins, the mainstream media will continue to decline in the face of the pressures mounting on it, newspapers will continue to cut staff, the old ships will go down as newer ones arise. The same hacks, meanwhile, will get the same Pulitzers for writing about the same irrelevancies. They same numskulls will continue to pat each other's backs for the fine moral fellows they all will tell themselves they are. In fact, you could make the case that McCain will make it easiest on them (and sell more hype to profit their corporate owners) by keeping alive the insane Bush Derangement Syndrome (already transmogrifying into the McCain Derangement Syndrome) that has given them the frame for everything they say and do, forestalling the need for thought and making life easy for them.
Meanwhile, the U.S. waits, prepared as no one else is to rescue the people of Burma, reviled to its core by Burma's military and the humantiarians of the UN and the liberal "international community" all over the place, as is this president, who has done more to combat AIDS than any other single man on Earth, as the people of Iraq also wait to learn if they really will be delivered back into the tender mercies of fanatic killers, Israel waits to learn if total annhilation will move from rhetoric to action, and the rest of us wait to find out which of these three future presidents will raise taxes the highest on us to "give" us free health care and make the climate change stop, God help us. At least I hold out hope McCain's warrior ethos and opposition to spending will keep him from really doing much about that last one, despite his apparent readiness to go with the flow on they hype.
Jon
From: David Burack
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 5:57 AM
At this point in time, immediately post-West Virginia, I have to admit that I am enjoying it. Even the possibility of watching Obama learn on the job how to become king.
But I am willing to bet a small amount on Hillary, and I just sent her yet another 50 bucks. She is appropriately scrappy, and I sense, if not a turning of the tide, at least a stopping of it from running Obama's way. She will go to the mat to bring at least some part of Florida and Michigan to bear. I think it will be tough for the DNC to deny MI and FL, regardless of the "rules," which the DNC of course has the power to change if it suits their purpose. And how can it suit their purpose to publicly disenfranchise some of the same electorate that they so justifiably claimed was disenfranchised by the Supreme Court in the last election?
With Hillary's win in W. Va., reality has begun to sink in on the party and the party-ers. The super delegates have to ponder whether they want to do another McGovern-- and I think that they're going to stop bleeding off to Obama at least until June. But they might be the idiots they appear to be, and throw this thing to Obama on the flimsy basis that the fight hurts the party. It doesn't hurt the party; it is sharpening the focus on real issues.
Question: Is it true that if there is no majority on the first ballot, then the delegates are free to vote their consciences? Or is that no longer the rule, if it ever was? If so, isn't there the faint possibility of having the first true convention, floor fights and all, since the 1940's or 50's?
The delegates choose the nominees, not Newsweek, not CNN's "Best Political Team," not even the odious New Yorker's Hendrik Herzberg, or New York Times political reporters whose almost openly biased coverage is all slanted to get them a ratings-enhancing black vs. white confrontation and to elect Barack Obama President. I'm not sure who needs to be reined in more, the corporate conglomerates or the mass media. Wait a minute; is there a difference?
But where the heck are the women? Are they really going to chance passing up the only possible female candidate for President in their lifetimes?
Dave B.
On May 9, 2008, at 8:44 PM, eliot markell wrote:
Thank you all for your feedback, especially Jon's in depth analysis.
Of course this whole mess could have been avoided by a Clinton nomination but so it goes. I now have until November to be persuaded to either sit this one out or cross over to the dark side and for the first time vote for the party of Lincoln.
Will my disenfranchisement from the Democratic Party, and distaste for Obama be enough motivation for me to put aside my discomfort with the Republican domestic agenda to lodge vote against a left wing platform that leaves me out in the cold? I guess I'm saying that if I decide to vote it would be to help establish an anti-Obama coalition within the Independent Party.
Would enough Independent voting against the Obama send the Democrats a message? Probably not, but if it looks like theres some kind of momentum to go against Obama within the Independents come November I would probably side with that movement.
Eliot
What is most galling to me is watching how the MSM has so thoroughly interjected itself into this whole political process, to the point where supposed “journalists” now take it for granted that they are charged with letting everyone know who will be the nominee and the next president – no matter what those annoying voters choose to do or believe. The talking heads of the Sunday chat shows and the insipid morning programs (“After the break we’ll discuss Hillary’s impact on the pantsuit industry – but first, what’s the latest on Miley Cyrus? We sent an investigative team to find out!”) have decided that we all need Obama the Healer to save us from ourselves, and they will brook no argument. This thing is OVER, they declare – so stop your stupid voting!!! Don’t you know that a bunch of elitist party hacks are going to decide this for you? Can’t you see that they are far wiser than you?
You’d think the fact that the Democrats’ hopelessly broken nominating system has yet again found a way to select the party’s most far left liberal candidate to be their November standard-bearer might give someone pause (Hello, Howard Dean? Do you recall George McGovern, or Walter Mondale, or Michael Dukakis, or John Kerry?). But let nothing stand in the way of the fairy tale that is “post-racial, post-partisan” Obama – certainly not those vulgar Clintons. The Dems are done with them, and now it’s time for them to begin the more acceptable former-first couple career of meddling in foreign affairs and writing fatuous books about how conservatives are bringing about the apocalypse.
Russ
From: Jon Burack [mailto:JBKburack@charter.net]
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 8:50 AM
David,
I was pleased to see the utter repudiation of Obama in W. Va., but I fear it will not deter the Obama juggernaut. I mean Obama's already explained it all -- those yokels are bitter and the victims of false consciousness. I do not know the answer about what happens after a first ballot, but it looks to me like the Democrats are determined not to let there be more than one. I also am not yet seeing that this fight is, as David says, "sharpening the focus on real issues" for Democrats. It might do that if the two candidates were the least bit clear about what the issues are and what they believe.
As for "corporate conglomerates or the mass media," a lot could be said. I just don't see what the "self-interest" is of either the conglomerates or the media intelligentsia in the choice between Obama and Hillary, or even McCain for that matter. No matter who wins, the mainstream media will continue to decline in the face of the pressures mounting on it, newspapers will continue to cut staff, the old ships will go down as newer ones arise. The same hacks, meanwhile, will get the same Pulitzers for writing about the same irrelevancies. They same numskulls will continue to pat each other's backs for the fine moral fellows they all will tell themselves they are. In fact, you could make the case that McCain will make it easiest on them (and sell more hype to profit their corporate owners) by keeping alive the insane Bush Derangement Syndrome (already transmogrifying into the McCain Derangement Syndrome) that has given them the frame for everything they say and do, forestalling the need for thought and making life easy for them.
Meanwhile, the U.S. waits, prepared as no one else is to rescue the people of Burma, reviled to its core by Burma's military and the humantiarians of the UN and the liberal "international community" all over the place, as is this president, who has done more to combat AIDS than any other single man on Earth, as the people of Iraq also wait to learn if they really will be delivered back into the tender mercies of fanatic killers, Israel waits to learn if total annhilation will move from rhetoric to action, and the rest of us wait to find out which of these three future presidents will raise taxes the highest on us to "give" us free health care and make the climate change stop, God help us. At least I hold out hope McCain's warrior ethos and opposition to spending will keep him from really doing much about that last one, despite his apparent readiness to go with the flow on they hype.
Jon
From: David Burack
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 5:57 AM
At this point in time, immediately post-West Virginia, I have to admit that I am enjoying it. Even the possibility of watching Obama learn on the job how to become king.
But I am willing to bet a small amount on Hillary, and I just sent her yet another 50 bucks. She is appropriately scrappy, and I sense, if not a turning of the tide, at least a stopping of it from running Obama's way. She will go to the mat to bring at least some part of Florida and Michigan to bear. I think it will be tough for the DNC to deny MI and FL, regardless of the "rules," which the DNC of course has the power to change if it suits their purpose. And how can it suit their purpose to publicly disenfranchise some of the same electorate that they so justifiably claimed was disenfranchised by the Supreme Court in the last election?
With Hillary's win in W. Va., reality has begun to sink in on the party and the party-ers. The super delegates have to ponder whether they want to do another McGovern-- and I think that they're going to stop bleeding off to Obama at least until June. But they might be the idiots they appear to be, and throw this thing to Obama on the flimsy basis that the fight hurts the party. It doesn't hurt the party; it is sharpening the focus on real issues.
Question: Is it true that if there is no majority on the first ballot, then the delegates are free to vote their consciences? Or is that no longer the rule, if it ever was? If so, isn't there the faint possibility of having the first true convention, floor fights and all, since the 1940's or 50's?
The delegates choose the nominees, not Newsweek, not CNN's "Best Political Team," not even the odious New Yorker's Hendrik Herzberg, or New York Times political reporters whose almost openly biased coverage is all slanted to get them a ratings-enhancing black vs. white confrontation and to elect Barack Obama President. I'm not sure who needs to be reined in more, the corporate conglomerates or the mass media. Wait a minute; is there a difference?
But where the heck are the women? Are they really going to chance passing up the only possible female candidate for President in their lifetimes?
Dave B.
On May 9, 2008, at 8:44 PM, eliot markell wrote:
Thank you all for your feedback, especially Jon's in depth analysis.
Of course this whole mess could have been avoided by a Clinton nomination but so it goes. I now have until November to be persuaded to either sit this one out or cross over to the dark side and for the first time vote for the party of Lincoln.
Will my disenfranchisement from the Democratic Party, and distaste for Obama be enough motivation for me to put aside my discomfort with the Republican domestic agenda to lodge vote against a left wing platform that leaves me out in the cold? I guess I'm saying that if I decide to vote it would be to help establish an anti-Obama coalition within the Independent Party.
Would enough Independent voting against the Obama send the Democrats a message? Probably not, but if it looks like theres some kind of momentum to go against Obama within the Independents come November I would probably side with that movement.
Eliot
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
JFK and Obama
I had trouble reading some of the things up here (David, what can be done about line breaks?). Here was one point I think I see:
"Kennedy denied necessary air support during the Bay of Pigs. Ordered the CIA to murder Castro (a fact that was covered up during the Warren Commission and beyond). Kennedy did make contact with Khrushchev during the missle crisis. It's what saved the world. It was Khrushchev's proposal that ultimately prevailed in the end result. As well a set of phones were installed to talk to our enemy. They were called The Hot Line, so the leaders of the nuclear powers could easily talk in the event of conflict."
I am a bit confused as to whether this is a defense of Kennedy and of Obama's comparison of himself to Kennedy, or not. I mean trying to get Castro killed does not seem like what Obama meant by talking with one's enemy. As for Kennedy talking with Khrushchev during the Cuban missile crisis, like I said, if this is what Obama means by talk I am all for it. As in the Swat team talking with the hostage taker to the degree of saying "Put down that weapon, step aside, and then maybe we can talk." In other words, if Obama is going to talk to Iran in the context of making it clear beyond a reasonable doubt as to the dire consequences of not talking, I am fine with that. But so far, that does not seem to be his intention. He wants to talk without preconditions (I know he denies this now, but the words are down on paper and he did say it.) JFK talked with Khrushchev in Oct. 1962 with the most dire preconditions imaginable.
Now Kennedy did have an earlier meeting with Khrushchev, wherein Khrushcheve appeared to role him and in fact came away believing he could be rolled. I cannot think, in fact, of a better example of what is wrong with talking without preconditions to one's enemies. They think you need them more than they need you.
Everything about Obama, from his refusal to disown Wright to his obfuscations about Hamas's endorsement of him, suggest the same thing to me. He will not take on absolute enmity with any realism or clean firmness. On the one hand, he protests that he doth disown them all. Yet his slippery words almost inevitably slide over to making excuses for them as well. Yes, he ultimately has come down strong on rejecting their ideas as utterly beyond the pale. But his heart is in the excuses he then makes, and you can tell it. They (Wright, Hamas) are the consequences of, on the one hand, white people's past racism, and on the other, the festering hatred our policies in the Middle East have ginned up. JFK did not have an once of this "nuanced" self-doubt (as Obama has also put it), and so I stick by my point.
"Kennedy denied necessary air support during the Bay of Pigs. Ordered the CIA to murder Castro (a fact that was covered up during the Warren Commission and beyond). Kennedy did make contact with Khrushchev during the missle crisis. It's what saved the world. It was Khrushchev's proposal that ultimately prevailed in the end result. As well a set of phones were installed to talk to our enemy. They were called The Hot Line, so the leaders of the nuclear powers could easily talk in the event of conflict."
I am a bit confused as to whether this is a defense of Kennedy and of Obama's comparison of himself to Kennedy, or not. I mean trying to get Castro killed does not seem like what Obama meant by talking with one's enemy. As for Kennedy talking with Khrushchev during the Cuban missile crisis, like I said, if this is what Obama means by talk I am all for it. As in the Swat team talking with the hostage taker to the degree of saying "Put down that weapon, step aside, and then maybe we can talk." In other words, if Obama is going to talk to Iran in the context of making it clear beyond a reasonable doubt as to the dire consequences of not talking, I am fine with that. But so far, that does not seem to be his intention. He wants to talk without preconditions (I know he denies this now, but the words are down on paper and he did say it.) JFK talked with Khrushchev in Oct. 1962 with the most dire preconditions imaginable.
Now Kennedy did have an earlier meeting with Khrushchev, wherein Khrushcheve appeared to role him and in fact came away believing he could be rolled. I cannot think, in fact, of a better example of what is wrong with talking without preconditions to one's enemies. They think you need them more than they need you.
Everything about Obama, from his refusal to disown Wright to his obfuscations about Hamas's endorsement of him, suggest the same thing to me. He will not take on absolute enmity with any realism or clean firmness. On the one hand, he protests that he doth disown them all. Yet his slippery words almost inevitably slide over to making excuses for them as well. Yes, he ultimately has come down strong on rejecting their ideas as utterly beyond the pale. But his heart is in the excuses he then makes, and you can tell it. They (Wright, Hamas) are the consequences of, on the one hand, white people's past racism, and on the other, the festering hatred our policies in the Middle East have ginned up. JFK did not have an once of this "nuanced" self-doubt (as Obama has also put it), and so I stick by my point.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Eliot wrote:
This is some chatter I had with a freind of mine who would prefer to remain anonymous:
Eliot wrote:
Well so far you and Miller are the only Democrats to enter the fray that have had anything interesting to say.
My Republican cousins (who have a lot of Democratic friends) have a blog where the rest of this dialoge will continue, I'll send you link. Although you might not agree with them I think my cousin Jon's (Jon was an educator and part of the '60s left in Madison WI after he left Harvard. His divorce from the left occurred shortly thereafter) commentary made a lot of very specific and cogent points regarding Obama and Clinton's primary contests.
There were certainly things about HC's positions that I found unappealing, the gas tax holiday was really off-base, but from my centrist perspective she's been a good senator, and would have made a trustworty president. I would have voted for her in a race against McCain. My main concerns about Obama are his relationship with Wright and his "soft" position on foreign policy. I think Obama's an intelligent, well meaning man who if we weren't engaged in long term war against determined enemies with no scruples could have made a good leader for this country.
But mostly I'm offended (and mystified) by his continued patronage of Wright's church after the 9/11 diatribe. To maintain a presence in that congregation is an egregious, inexcusable breach of trust and reliability for anyone who would claim to represent a broad constituency as president. Whether or not I vote against Obama in November as an Independent will depend on how much McCain plays to the Republican base and how close the race seems at the end. If I feel the need to send a message to the Democrats that I've been given the cold shoulder I will.
----- Original Message -----
From [Anonymous at writer's request]
I don't get the sense that you guys are actually Democrats, a lot of the people in this exchange are Republicans. Whatever, I voted for Clinton in the New York primary, but lately she's been pissing me off ("obliterate Iran"; her talk about her support among hard working whites; the whole under fire thing in Bosnia as misspeaking; that she would sit down at a table with Richard Mellon-Scaife, and be interviewed for his scum paper-it's all too much). There is also some recent hanky panky with Bill greasing the way for an individual to get oil exploratiion rights in Kazakstan that was only reported in the Times, but not seen again. Stuff like that will occur more and more.
------------------------------------------
A post on Talking Points Memo has this:
Never Thought I'd Say It
How far off track is Hillary's campaign? It's so bad even Peggy Noonan is making sense, painful as that is to say.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121027865275678423.html?mod=opinion_columns_featured_lsc
----------------------------------------------------------
I have no problem with Obama. Well limited problems, his health plan isn't as inclusive (and therefore economically practical as Clintons). He's not the progressive that everyone thinks he is. The most liberal member of the Senate thing, is I think cooked up to get the right in a tizzy about him. Or more likely the Reagan Democrats in a tizzy. Being dependent on the black vote isn't such a bad thing. It's not like they aren't as good votes or something. He also takes the educated voters. The national may well play different than the primaries.
If the right can demonize him, make him seem unmanly ala Dukakis then they can reframe the race. Cause if they run on McCain's merits they've got not much.
McCain has no health plan to speak of. He'd like to dissolve the Veterans Administration's plan; He thinks the judiciary has been activist, while the President has been exerting the divine right of kings. He also associates with a right wing nut minister, who he sought out for support, and won't repudiate (Hagee). His wife refuses to release her taxes, and they are very wealthy -mostly her money. For all the torture issues that surround McCain, he refuses to repudiate it.
He is surrounded by lobbyists but says that he is unaffected by them. He gamed the Federal Election system to get money out of it, but so far has avoided action by them, because they lack a board member to act (the President has to put one on and he won't).
Oh, McCain will appoint more rightist judges to the court. Great just fucking great. More national security nightmare. Voted to suspend Habeas.
There was a particular piece of blather that I wanted to address in one of those emails:
> Obama (victory speech on Tuesday)
> I trust the American people to understand that it is not weakness,
> but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but to our enemies, like
> Roosevelt did, and Kennedy did, and Truman did.
>
> You know, that Roosevelt whose famous 'talk' with Hitler and Tojo
> consisted of two words -- "Unconditional Surrender." Or Kennedy, who sat
> down to shmooze at a picnic with Castro in the Bay of Pigs, made nice
> phone calls to Khrushchev one fine October (1962), and enjoyed tea and
> crumpets with the Diems of Vietnam. Then of course there is my
> pal Harry, whose "conversational wisdom" with the Emperor of the Sun was
> on full display on August, 6 and 9, 1945. If Obama is going down this
> road, I will be happy for him to "talk" away with our enemies. As long
> as he can just keep his wife quiet, that is.
Kennedy denied necessary air support during the Bay of Pigs. Ordered the CIA to murder Castro (a fact that was covered up during the Warren Commission and beyond). Kennedy did make contact with Khrushchev during the missle crisis. It's what saved the world. It was Khrushchev's proposal that ultimately prevailed in the end result. As well a set of phones were installed to talk to our enemy. They were called The Hot Line, so the leaders of the nuclear powers could easily talk in the event of conflict.
Diem in Vietnam, we had murdered.
I'm reading a good book these days. It's called Legacy of Ashes ( ISBN 9780385514453 ), it's a history of the CIA.
Hope you and yours are doing well
This is some chatter I had with a freind of mine who would prefer to remain anonymous:
Eliot wrote:
Well so far you and Miller are the only Democrats to enter the fray that have had anything interesting to say.
My Republican cousins (who have a lot of Democratic friends) have a blog where the rest of this dialoge will continue, I'll send you link. Although you might not agree with them I think my cousin Jon's (Jon was an educator and part of the '60s left in Madison WI after he left Harvard. His divorce from the left occurred shortly thereafter) commentary made a lot of very specific and cogent points regarding Obama and Clinton's primary contests.
There were certainly things about HC's positions that I found unappealing, the gas tax holiday was really off-base, but from my centrist perspective she's been a good senator, and would have made a trustworty president. I would have voted for her in a race against McCain. My main concerns about Obama are his relationship with Wright and his "soft" position on foreign policy. I think Obama's an intelligent, well meaning man who if we weren't engaged in long term war against determined enemies with no scruples could have made a good leader for this country.
But mostly I'm offended (and mystified) by his continued patronage of Wright's church after the 9/11 diatribe. To maintain a presence in that congregation is an egregious, inexcusable breach of trust and reliability for anyone who would claim to represent a broad constituency as president. Whether or not I vote against Obama in November as an Independent will depend on how much McCain plays to the Republican base and how close the race seems at the end. If I feel the need to send a message to the Democrats that I've been given the cold shoulder I will.
----- Original Message -----
From [Anonymous at writer's request]
I don't get the sense that you guys are actually Democrats, a lot of the people in this exchange are Republicans. Whatever, I voted for Clinton in the New York primary, but lately she's been pissing me off ("obliterate Iran"; her talk about her support among hard working whites; the whole under fire thing in Bosnia as misspeaking; that she would sit down at a table with Richard Mellon-Scaife, and be interviewed for his scum paper-it's all too much). There is also some recent hanky panky with Bill greasing the way for an individual to get oil exploratiion rights in Kazakstan that was only reported in the Times, but not seen again. Stuff like that will occur more and more.
------------------------------------------
A post on Talking Points Memo has this:
Never Thought I'd Say It
How far off track is Hillary's campaign? It's so bad even Peggy Noonan is making sense, painful as that is to say.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121027865275678423.html?mod=opinion_columns_featured_lsc
----------------------------------------------------------
I have no problem with Obama. Well limited problems, his health plan isn't as inclusive (and therefore economically practical as Clintons). He's not the progressive that everyone thinks he is. The most liberal member of the Senate thing, is I think cooked up to get the right in a tizzy about him. Or more likely the Reagan Democrats in a tizzy. Being dependent on the black vote isn't such a bad thing. It's not like they aren't as good votes or something. He also takes the educated voters. The national may well play different than the primaries.
If the right can demonize him, make him seem unmanly ala Dukakis then they can reframe the race. Cause if they run on McCain's merits they've got not much.
McCain has no health plan to speak of. He'd like to dissolve the Veterans Administration's plan; He thinks the judiciary has been activist, while the President has been exerting the divine right of kings. He also associates with a right wing nut minister, who he sought out for support, and won't repudiate (Hagee). His wife refuses to release her taxes, and they are very wealthy -mostly her money. For all the torture issues that surround McCain, he refuses to repudiate it.
He is surrounded by lobbyists but says that he is unaffected by them. He gamed the Federal Election system to get money out of it, but so far has avoided action by them, because they lack a board member to act (the President has to put one on and he won't).
Oh, McCain will appoint more rightist judges to the court. Great just fucking great. More national security nightmare. Voted to suspend Habeas.
There was a particular piece of blather that I wanted to address in one of those emails:
> Obama (victory speech on Tuesday)
> I trust the American people to understand that it is not weakness,
> but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but to our enemies, like
> Roosevelt did, and Kennedy did, and Truman did.
>
> You know, that Roosevelt whose famous 'talk' with Hitler and Tojo
> consisted of two words -- "Unconditional Surrender." Or Kennedy, who sat
> down to shmooze at a picnic with Castro in the Bay of Pigs, made nice
> phone calls to Khrushchev one fine October (1962), and enjoyed tea and
> crumpets with the Diems of Vietnam. Then of course there is my
> pal Harry, whose "conversational wisdom" with the Emperor of the Sun was
> on full display on August, 6 and 9, 1945. If Obama is going down this
> road, I will be happy for him to "talk" away with our enemies. As long
> as he can just keep his wife quiet, that is.
Kennedy denied necessary air support during the Bay of Pigs. Ordered the CIA to murder Castro (a fact that was covered up during the Warren Commission and beyond). Kennedy did make contact with Khrushchev during the missle crisis. It's what saved the world. It was Khrushchev's proposal that ultimately prevailed in the end result. As well a set of phones were installed to talk to our enemy. They were called The Hot Line, so the leaders of the nuclear powers could easily talk in the event of conflict.
Diem in Vietnam, we had murdered.
I'm reading a good book these days. It's called Legacy of Ashes ( ISBN 9780385514453 ), it's a history of the CIA.
Hope you and yours are doing well
Friday, May 09, 2008
Is it site 9 or Roswell, Area 51?
David,
Glad to see this site revived. But will anyone show up here? Does this site exist, or is it a figment of the imagination? Time will tell. Post some Armenai pictures or something. I will be back.
Jon
Glad to see this site revived. But will anyone show up here? Does this site exist, or is it a figment of the imagination? Time will tell. Post some Armenai pictures or something. I will be back.
Jon
The Great Divide
On May 7, 2008 at 11:41 PM, Jon wrote:
As of 10 pm CST, it looks like a dodge-the-bullet night for Obama. Hillary is squeaking by in Indiana, but Obama's has swept NC on the wave of the 92% of the black vote. This could haul him up over the great Democratic Party divide at last. He's probably got it close to nailed -- unless Hillary does go nuclear with a fight for Florida and Michigan at the convention in August. But for now, I think the circus we Republicans have been enjoying is about done.
No matter. What is startling to me is how utterly predictable it actually is that something like this would happen sooner or later. In a sense, it is exactly the pattern that first emerged fully in 1968, as the party of segregation -- a mere four years after its transformation into the party of civil rights -- became then the party of victimization, entitlement and vicious subgroup identity politics. It may be that Obama, with the nomination, can go on to beat McCain. This is the year for the Dems, and if they lose a general election in this year they may as well give it up as far as presidential politics goes. However, I still (marginally) do not think Obama can win the general election. His attempt to be a post-racial candidate has now collapsed in any case. He is entirely dependent on the black vote and the transnational new class, and in the case of blacks it is a black vote for a black man. In fact, within the Obama faction, it appears the Reverend Wright may even have helped him -- just as OJ also triggered racial solidarity in the age of paranoid victimology. The Obama victory is, in this sense, a tragedy for blacks, not a triumph. An enormous waste. Whites meanwhile, the bread-and-butter white Democrats, have (at least for now) abandoned Obama. What goes around comes around. Or as the Rev. Wright put it, the chickens are coming home to roost -- but for the Democratic Party. The Party cannot play the race card for 40 years and them pretend to have transcended the very life blood of what's kept it going.
Am I making too much of Obama's unique conundrum in seeing it as a mere culmination of his party's choice to mire us all in this idiotic group identity game for so long? I do not think so. Either he, or he and his wife (with her perhaps pushing hardest) chose Wright (and Ayers) because in the world the Democrats made it is not only okay to associate with leftwing racists and violence-infatuated fanatics, but it is almost mandatory if you are seeking to rise as a black Democrat. I doubt Obama buys much of Wright's poison, but he cleary was not bothered enough by it or if bothered did not see it as all that much of a threat to him. certainly not enough to trump expediency. His first words about Wright's words, in Philadelphia remember, were that Wright's views were "controversial." You can live with controversial. Only in a very rarified political bubble can you see someone of Wright's calibre as merely controversial.
So now we have the situation in which the black vote and the upscale academicized left-liberal vote, both of which the Clintons once owned, have been split from the white, lower middle and middle class vote, which they also owned. Over the past 40 years, the Clintons were the ONLY national candidates the Democrats have ever come up with who healed this split. Now, the split is opened up wider than it ever was before. Obama is not merely the vicitim of this, he is to blame for it as well. Had he truly been the post-racial candidate, he'd have disowned Jeremiah (and the odious Farakhan as well) long before this spring, and he'd had have honestly owned up to a mistake for ever having had anything to do with him. Had he done those things, he'd have weathered the storm, the biggest part of which now still awaits him. Instead he gave a speech in which he said he could NOT disown Jeremiah. In the course of that speech, he played so many double-meaning rhetorical games that many said he had given a great speech on a par with FDR, JFK and Lincoln at Cooper Union. I dare say, now not a word will be remembered of that speech in days to come. Obama will not be making campaign ads out of it, that's for sure.
The Clintons also bear some blame. Hillary until PA ran the worst campaign in history practically. She should have gone for those bread and butter voters with a New Deal pitch and a tough foreign policy pitch and an emphasis on all the ways she has reached out to Republicans and tried to get things done. The Scoop Jackson/Pat Moynihan role was beckoning. Instead, she at first acted with utter complacency as the annoited one. And who could blame her. In today's Democratic Party, Joe Lieberman is what happens to Scoop Jackson types. You can almost excuse Hillary for passing on that. Yet she could have pulled it off. In any case, after Obama unannointed the annointed one, she then panicked over his mesmerizing the Democratic left and tried for much too long to kow-tow to it herself. Had she said, instead, I will get those oil companies, get those terrorists, fix medicare, clean out the Augean stables, win the right way in Iraq and make you all proud to go out and lift a tall one for the good ole USA, she would have had it sewed up by now. Hell, I might even have voted for her.
Instead, the left, the moveon.org, George Soros, Daily Kos, smart alecky hip young Internet left and its pandering admirers in the media spooked her. The very people who created the great divide that she and her husband were the only ones ever to bridge. But she could not get to Obama's left. Her lurch left failed. That's because Obama telegraphs his leftism in such a subtle and devious way that that farther to it he moves, the more reasonable he seems. Until Jeremiah, that is. It's amazing. This man who talks about reaching out across the isle and healing the nation. The man with the most liberal voting record in the Senate. When it came to voting for Chief Justice Roberts, for instance - as McCain so well and aptly pointed out today - Obama was in a minority of 22 in a U.S. Senate of 100. Meanwhile, it was McCain who took part in the gang of 14, to the great annoyance of many conservatives, to get the SCOTUS nomination process back on track. That's reaching out. (By the way, Ruth Bader Ginsberg is easily as far to the left as Roberts is to the right. When she was up for nomination, she won 98-2. So who exactly is doing the reaching out Obama says only he will do, eh?)
Unfortunately for my side, I expect Obama to use his prodigious sophistic skills (I think he already is now) to paper this over and move the party into the Republican-demonizing, white-guilt tripping, patriotism-dissembling bamboozle in order to get everyone to again look the other way. But in fact, Obama is the candidate of a faction. Many of the best and brightest among us think it is a growing faction that will swamp all the old Bubbas out there who vote against Obama now by 60% plus. It can't. And so Obama will deal, and drink beer, and pretend to care about people who think they might, though they in fact will not, lose their jobs, and surely not because of NAFTA, but whose resentments are there for the taking. Many of the states in which Obama won big are states he cannot hope to win in the general election, however, so I expect the new Bubbaized Obama to be working overtime from now on to salvage Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, etc. Do not expect too much of the "we are the ones we've been waiting for" high flying. Those who think this is Obama's real persona will have to wait and hope to see it resurface after November. The Democratic Bubbas are not alone, and it will take Obama a lot less talking down and a lot less talking past to win them over.
What could be at stake in the Obama campaign is a decisive U.S. turn toward the statism and defeatism of Europe, which is really what Obama and his transnational progressivist radicalism is all about. (You see, the guy really does have his "community organizer" ideology intact, and it is certainly not the bring us all together blather he has been selling.) Given the baby-boom wave now starting to crash onto the shores of the entitlement state system, that will probably mean very high taxes, regulation, regulation, economic stagnation, flabbiness and isolationism in the face of Islamic radicalism, and preening self-righteousness in cultural matters for the rest of my life. Oh well, I've got my books, so when the tax man comes to tax my feet I can still sit down.
But I will be giving my last hurrah for John McCain this year, you can bet. After that, I say to hip young we-are-the-worlders coming on now, it's all yours. Good luck.
My thoughts for the night.
Jon
---------------------------------------------------
As of 10 pm CST, it looks like a dodge-the-bullet night for Obama. Hillary is squeaking by in Indiana, but Obama's has swept NC on the wave of the 92% of the black vote. This could haul him up over the great Democratic Party divide at last. He's probably got it close to nailed -- unless Hillary does go nuclear with a fight for Florida and Michigan at the convention in August. But for now, I think the circus we Republicans have been enjoying is about done.
No matter. What is startling to me is how utterly predictable it actually is that something like this would happen sooner or later. In a sense, it is exactly the pattern that first emerged fully in 1968, as the party of segregation -- a mere four years after its transformation into the party of civil rights -- became then the party of victimization, entitlement and vicious subgroup identity politics. It may be that Obama, with the nomination, can go on to beat McCain. This is the year for the Dems, and if they lose a general election in this year they may as well give it up as far as presidential politics goes. However, I still (marginally) do not think Obama can win the general election. His attempt to be a post-racial candidate has now collapsed in any case. He is entirely dependent on the black vote and the transnational new class, and in the case of blacks it is a black vote for a black man. In fact, within the Obama faction, it appears the Reverend Wright may even have helped him -- just as OJ also triggered racial solidarity in the age of paranoid victimology. The Obama victory is, in this sense, a tragedy for blacks, not a triumph. An enormous waste. Whites meanwhile, the bread-and-butter white Democrats, have (at least for now) abandoned Obama. What goes around comes around. Or as the Rev. Wright put it, the chickens are coming home to roost -- but for the Democratic Party. The Party cannot play the race card for 40 years and them pretend to have transcended the very life blood of what's kept it going.
Am I making too much of Obama's unique conundrum in seeing it as a mere culmination of his party's choice to mire us all in this idiotic group identity game for so long? I do not think so. Either he, or he and his wife (with her perhaps pushing hardest) chose Wright (and Ayers) because in the world the Democrats made it is not only okay to associate with leftwing racists and violence-infatuated fanatics, but it is almost mandatory if you are seeking to rise as a black Democrat. I doubt Obama buys much of Wright's poison, but he cleary was not bothered enough by it or if bothered did not see it as all that much of a threat to him. certainly not enough to trump expediency. His first words about Wright's words, in Philadelphia remember, were that Wright's views were "controversial." You can live with controversial. Only in a very rarified political bubble can you see someone of Wright's calibre as merely controversial.
So now we have the situation in which the black vote and the upscale academicized left-liberal vote, both of which the Clintons once owned, have been split from the white, lower middle and middle class vote, which they also owned. Over the past 40 years, the Clintons were the ONLY national candidates the Democrats have ever come up with who healed this split. Now, the split is opened up wider than it ever was before. Obama is not merely the vicitim of this, he is to blame for it as well. Had he truly been the post-racial candidate, he'd have disowned Jeremiah (and the odious Farakhan as well) long before this spring, and he'd had have honestly owned up to a mistake for ever having had anything to do with him. Had he done those things, he'd have weathered the storm, the biggest part of which now still awaits him. Instead he gave a speech in which he said he could NOT disown Jeremiah. In the course of that speech, he played so many double-meaning rhetorical games that many said he had given a great speech on a par with FDR, JFK and Lincoln at Cooper Union. I dare say, now not a word will be remembered of that speech in days to come. Obama will not be making campaign ads out of it, that's for sure.
The Clintons also bear some blame. Hillary until PA ran the worst campaign in history practically. She should have gone for those bread and butter voters with a New Deal pitch and a tough foreign policy pitch and an emphasis on all the ways she has reached out to Republicans and tried to get things done. The Scoop Jackson/Pat Moynihan role was beckoning. Instead, she at first acted with utter complacency as the annoited one. And who could blame her. In today's Democratic Party, Joe Lieberman is what happens to Scoop Jackson types. You can almost excuse Hillary for passing on that. Yet she could have pulled it off. In any case, after Obama unannointed the annointed one, she then panicked over his mesmerizing the Democratic left and tried for much too long to kow-tow to it herself. Had she said, instead, I will get those oil companies, get those terrorists, fix medicare, clean out the Augean stables, win the right way in Iraq and make you all proud to go out and lift a tall one for the good ole USA, she would have had it sewed up by now. Hell, I might even have voted for her.
Instead, the left, the moveon.org, George Soros, Daily Kos, smart alecky hip young Internet left and its pandering admirers in the media spooked her. The very people who created the great divide that she and her husband were the only ones ever to bridge. But she could not get to Obama's left. Her lurch left failed. That's because Obama telegraphs his leftism in such a subtle and devious way that that farther to it he moves, the more reasonable he seems. Until Jeremiah, that is. It's amazing. This man who talks about reaching out across the isle and healing the nation. The man with the most liberal voting record in the Senate. When it came to voting for Chief Justice Roberts, for instance - as McCain so well and aptly pointed out today - Obama was in a minority of 22 in a U.S. Senate of 100. Meanwhile, it was McCain who took part in the gang of 14, to the great annoyance of many conservatives, to get the SCOTUS nomination process back on track. That's reaching out. (By the way, Ruth Bader Ginsberg is easily as far to the left as Roberts is to the right. When she was up for nomination, she won 98-2. So who exactly is doing the reaching out Obama says only he will do, eh?)
Unfortunately for my side, I expect Obama to use his prodigious sophistic skills (I think he already is now) to paper this over and move the party into the Republican-demonizing, white-guilt tripping, patriotism-dissembling bamboozle in order to get everyone to again look the other way. But in fact, Obama is the candidate of a faction. Many of the best and brightest among us think it is a growing faction that will swamp all the old Bubbas out there who vote against Obama now by 60% plus. It can't. And so Obama will deal, and drink beer, and pretend to care about people who think they might, though they in fact will not, lose their jobs, and surely not because of NAFTA, but whose resentments are there for the taking. Many of the states in which Obama won big are states he cannot hope to win in the general election, however, so I expect the new Bubbaized Obama to be working overtime from now on to salvage Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, etc. Do not expect too much of the "we are the ones we've been waiting for" high flying. Those who think this is Obama's real persona will have to wait and hope to see it resurface after November. The Democratic Bubbas are not alone, and it will take Obama a lot less talking down and a lot less talking past to win them over.
What could be at stake in the Obama campaign is a decisive U.S. turn toward the statism and defeatism of Europe, which is really what Obama and his transnational progressivist radicalism is all about. (You see, the guy really does have his "community organizer" ideology intact, and it is certainly not the bring us all together blather he has been selling.) Given the baby-boom wave now starting to crash onto the shores of the entitlement state system, that will probably mean very high taxes, regulation, regulation, economic stagnation, flabbiness and isolationism in the face of Islamic radicalism, and preening self-righteousness in cultural matters for the rest of my life. Oh well, I've got my books, so when the tax man comes to tax my feet I can still sit down.
But I will be giving my last hurrah for John McCain this year, you can bet. After that, I say to hip young we-are-the-worlders coming on now, it's all yours. Good luck.
My thoughts for the night.
Jon
---------------------------------------------------
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)