Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Bush Latte: Obama keeps moving right, cites Reagan's "optimism" and "clarity"

[Welcome, Sidehow and MyDD readers.]

Well.

Wouldn't it be simpler for Obama just to run on the Republican ticket? They really need a decent candidate over there, and I think Obama is just as adept and far more eloquent than Romney, has better hair, a better baritone--and he doesn't have the funny underwear thing the Mittster has, either. I'd call it a win-win situation.

I think, at this point, we can forget about the biography, and the position papers, and the oratory, stop listening to the music, and start listening to the lyrics. First came Obama's infamous dogwhistle to the Village that put Social Security in play, a right wing talking point. Then there was calling unions "special interests", a right wing talking point. Then there was tax cuts as a panacea, a right wing talking point. Meanwhile, the Oborg consistently leverage right wing talking points like "trial lawyers" to trash Edwards, not to mention Hillary hatred, all the while explaining what Obama "really means," and airily denying it all. Then there was the trashing of Gore. And finally we've got the infamous Florida brochure, where Obama encourages Republicans to become "Obamacrats" just for one day to vote for him, and then re-up as Republicans again. (Way to party build, there, guy.) Obama is a highly skilled politician and a Harvard-schooled lawyer. None of this can be accidental.*

And now this:

The Politico's Ben Smith:

Obama, in his interview with the Reno Gazette-Journal's editorial board, made the case that his movement is as much about a national moment as about him as a "singular" individual, and he drew a rather odd analogy for a Democrat: Ronald Reagan.

Blog_CBO_Income_Inequality_2007

"Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not, and a way that Bill Clinton did not," he said, describing Reagan as appealing to a sentiment that, "We want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."

Now, maybe Obama was elsewhere at the time or otherwise occupied, but many of us, and especially those of us who were not Republicans, do not look back on the Reagan years with any sense of "clarity" and "optimism." We were not children at that time, listening to ads on the teebee for "morning again in America." We were working adults, who sensed, correctly, even then, that the big wienie was on the way, and that we were being asked to bend over and take it; see chart at left (detailed analysis here). For the last generation, the only real winners are the top 1%. Everybody else either broke even or lost. That change started with Reagan, and continued with Bush I and Bush II because that's the direction they, as conservatives, wanted the country to go. Clinton could not have reversed the trend had he wanted to, especially in the face of ferocious attack by the Republican party, culminating in a ginned up impeachment. If you think America should be of the wealthy, by the wealthy, and for the wealthy, then by all means vote for more of Reagan's "clarity" and "optimism."

And now Obama wants to cram Reagan's bullshit down our throats again? What's wrong with this guy?

Clarity?

Tell that to the 11,000 air traffic controllers that Reagan fired and whose union Reagan busted. Of course, if you do think that unions are "special interests," perhaps "clarity" is the word you would pick.

Optimism?

Yeah, like selling arms secretly to the Iranians to get the money to fund a secret war in Nicaragua. That was Iran-Contra, the Reagan administration's illegal scheme to evade Congressional funding restrictions for which many (see below) were tried, convicted, and (bien sur) pardoned.

Iran-Contra: Now that's optimism!

And does the lack of respect that Reagan showed for the rule of law and other branches of government during Iran-Contra sound familiar to you? Do the pardons? Well, they should, because Reagan and Bush are two peas in a pod on that score. And they should certainly be familiar to a professor of Constitutional law! Many, many of the operatives who fought the battles of the '80s and '90s for Reagan are fighting the battles of the 2000's for Bush today: Pentagon head Bob Gates, and lesser luminaries like Elliott Abrams, John Negroponte, and DHS security head Charles Allen, not to mention Bush's esteemed father, who was famously "out of the loop," as if anybody would believe that meant anything other than that he'd achieved plausible deniability.

The continuity of personnel should tell you something: Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II are all part of the same Conservative Movement that's been running the country for the last 30 years. Reagan, Bush I, Bush II are a seamless garment. They cannot be separated. They have the same funders, the same broad policy goals, the same operatives, the same whores in the press, the same talking points, the same consultants, and--I know this will come as a surprise to you--they all belong to the same party: The Republicans, with, of course, exceptions like Obama's mentor, Joe Lieberman.

Has Obama no knowledge of history? Has he not been paying attention? Is he ignorant?

Or is he pandering, grotesquely, to low information voters and Republicans? You'd think a man of Obama's undoubted skill and talent could do much better.

Time will tell. But I think this latest rightward slide doesn't bode well for Obama's credentials as a progressive, let alone a Democrat, and portends a rocky ride for him as President, should he gain the office.

If this be Unity, Fuck it. I don't ride that Pony.

NOTE * Do I really have to explain why using right wing talking points matters? A year from now, nobody except policy wonks is going to remember the white papers on any candidate's site.

Rhetoric and talking points count, because they are what people will remember in a year. The talking points and the rhetoric are what the candidates are campaigning on, what people are hearing, and the kind of mandate the candidates are going to get.

So, if Obama campaigns on right wing talking points -- that is, on poison pill after poison pill for progressive policies -- he's going to get a mandate for right wing talking points.

And I don't believe the Phonebooth Theory, where Obama runs from the right, and then, once elected, jumps into a phone booth, loses the Clark Kent glasses and the suit, and emerges, garbed as Progressive Superman. That may have worked for Bush, but that's because the Village was happy to have him go right. It won't work for Obama, because the Village would not be happy to have him go left. And in any case, he was no mandate to go left, because he campaigned on right wing talking points. If indeed he does want to go left, which at this point I regard as at best unproven, vehement statements by the Oborg notwithstanding. The great thing about vacuous rhetoric is that you can project whatever you want into it.

0
No votes yet

Comments

chicago dyke's picture
Submitted by chicago dyke on

"some of us were adults..."

so who still dreams of reagan? older folks, white guys, perhaps some 'moderates' who are a tad sick of the fundies running the party and getting all the megaphones. and you're spot on to identify the youngsters who only know about "morning in america," being only a shine in their daddy's eyes as he contemplated ways to generate additional revenue streams in the era of 30% interest rates and the death of american manufacturing.

i posted my new theory above. along those lines, i'll say this: it looks like obama is going to be the Handsome Prince to hillary's Clintonella. He's the representative of the Establishment, the royalty, Order and Law. but he's a 'forward' thinking heir, and he thinks that serfs shouldn't be broken on the rack, just whipped, and that girls should ride ponies, if only side saddle. hillary is the token princess-in-the-rough, not born to the Manor but deserving of it when she works really hard and is always nice to her mean stepsisters and doesn't cry. she's the plucky heroine for those more spirited dreamer readers, where obama is the character designed to moved the hearts of the less imaginative. again, i'm sorry the writers' strike prevented the authors from being able to come up with a role for Jonny. he would've made a great second fling/dark horse contender.

chicago dyke's picture
Submitted by chicago dyke on

never trust politico.

the money part of the quote is left out of this post (i am DCOW for politico so i don't know for sure if he left it out)

I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating

that's a like a right wing talking point, triple, or something! "excesses of the 60s" (and 70s, can't miss those younger mushy middlers, now can he?); Evil Big Gummint, and "accountability!"

thatcher would be proud. there's only one way to the top, babee! with bootheels on the necks of those who support you, that's how!

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

because he knew he could get further as a Democrat. He never gave a damn about the Democratic Party; it was all about him and what he could get out of it.

I think the other reason he used the Reagan analogy is the Reno Gazette-Journal is a very conservative newspaper and one MyDD commenter noted it was a backhanded endorsement of Obama. Kinda like "well we hate Hillary and at least he's not her."

Jon Ralston, LV Sun

The Las Vegas Review-Journal's endorsement this morning of Barack Obama is an exemplar of intellectual bankruptcy, designed to be an attack on Hillary Clinton by using a phony embrace of Obama. It is likely to have the opposite effect because Democratic activists loathe the RJ -- and they are who will be voting Saturday. And with the RJ's track record on major endorsements, this could be, as CityLife Editor Steve Sebelius put it, the kiss of death for Obama's campaign.

That's why the endorsement was up briefly on Obama's website then pulled down.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

I. did. not. know. that. However it may make the Sun columnist's comments a little more understandable if he is dissing the crosstown rag.

No idea what the papers are like the rest of the year; Nevada is not exactly a hotspot for Civil War news so i do not have occasion to hit them in the course of daily activity. I dunno if this is a NYT/NYDaily News/NYPost level of rivalry, or even a Chicago Trib/SunTimes sort. But it does not require an in depth knowledge of newspaper rivalries to venture a guess that if the RJ had endorsed St. Peter for the position, the Sun would work up a response that this was entirely unfair to St. Paul and exemplified the reasons everybody hated the RJ.

Circulation figures are probably available but I lack either time or interest to dig into this particular dustup. The Raucus Caucus situation has some more substantive issues but at this point the most any of us out here can do is sit back and wait to see how it plays out.

(Just watching a bit of the rather loathesome "Morning Joe" show with J. Scabrous, and he had some guy on whose name I didn't catch. They were going on about Obama's latest gush over Reagan's Sunny Optimism (gag) and the guest then went off on the Invincible Clinton Machine and how Big O probably didn't stand a chance, etc. The striking part was that nobody seemed to remember that Obama came up through the Chicago machine, and that ain't no slouch of a training ground either.

(Just a thought.)

And since I'm rambling on here, can I say what a particularly crappy choice the caucus system seems to be for a state like Nevada?

First off it's fucking huge, meaning that people in most counties outside the big cities would have to drive for hours, at night, in winter, to participate. Great way to boost participation there, right.

And in the big cities, all based on gambling 'n' whores and other fun stuff, you have the problem that led to the "solution" for the culinary workers: these are cities that never sleep, and you can't take the entire workforce offline--repeat note about this being on a Saturday night for chrissakes--for several hours to gather in corners of big rooms.

Hell, TN is in Tsunami Tuesday this time and they just opened early voting here yesterday morning. Meaning that if you anticipate having a hard time getting to your regular polling place on Feb. 5 you have almost THREE FULL WEEKS to get it out of the way on the spur of the moment if you happen to be driving by the county office building.

Sigh. Turnout here will probably display its usual pathetic suckitude anyway. Nobody's campaigning here and the State Bigwigs all declared for Hillary weeks ago and the sum total of political activism of any sort I've seen so far are those streetcorner Paulistas in Paris and two vehicles displaying Thompson stickers. And one of those was wearing Nevada license plates. Go figure.

Submitted by lambert on

So far, all these comments make what I wrote seem, well, not divisive or anything. Especially Politico toning it down, for pity's sake.

C'mon. Won't somebody tell me what Obama "really means"?

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by lambert on

If Big Orange doesn't know about that, they should...

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

chicago dyke's picture
Submitted by chicago dyke on

i got it from an email, and i know he got it too. so sorry, no link just now, i'll see if i can find one.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

C’mon. Won’t somebody tell me what Obama “really means”?

That's exactly the thing--every single rightwing-loving statement of Obama's gets explained and spun away--someday his supporters will have to realize that he either actually means it all, or he's actually totally full of bull.

I vote for totally full of bull. How about this, from the same interview:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XekVgcsow...

"Even when you discuss war, the frame of reference is always Viet Nam. That's not my frame of reference. My frame of reference is 'what works.' Even when I first opposed the war in Iraq, my first line was 'I don't oppose all wars, I just oppose dumb wars' specifically to make clear that this is not just some anti-military '70's love in approach."

Is he saying Nam wasn't a dumb war? Is he saying activists opposed Viet Nam as some knee-jerk hippie anti-military reaction? Or is he just blowing bull? Our frame of reference for war is 9/11, not Viet Nam. Bin Laden's frame of reference is Viet Nam (American weakness).

"I didn't come of age in the '60s. I'm not invested in them."

And he didn't "come of age" post/911, either. Kids who 'came of age' post-9/11 don't diss Nam-era activists. When we were trying to beat Bush in 2004, I met a lot of 'post-boomer' anti-war activists. Real activists, kids in their 20's getting arrested. They talked just like Nam-era activists! At one meeting a young woman excitedly said "The Weathermen are resurfacing to stop Bush!" How did she know who the Weathermen were?

I think this guy Obama is just a super-atomic manure machine.

Submitted by lambert on

What you said:

This guy Obama is just a super-atomic manure machine

I just don't see how people can fall for it. Perhaps they want to be deceived?

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Short shelf life for that term. Not anywhere near harsh enough to symbolize the available choices, Lying Hypocrite or Neocon Tool.

Tweedle Dee to Bush’s Tweedle Dumb is what it is. Such a disappointment.

Also, it may be that the ObamaSwarm mass movement does not visit here any longer because they have progressed beyond the stage of needing to engage with critics. They’ve become self-validating, true believers confident in the inevitable victory of their correctness. The same subordinate, confused, frightened, Independent/Moderate marshmallow squishy next-to-nothingnesses that followed Reagan, then Clinton, then BushCo are now drawn to Affable Leader Obama.

Posting an Edwards-Obama point-by-point comparison here at Corrente and then repeatedly linking to it in comments on pro-Obama threads might be useful in peeling off a few thoughtful voters. Linking to an Edwards-Hillary comparison on her fan sites might peel off a few more. Guerilla marketing. Blog swarm, is that the term?

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

I've been writing a megapost about how I don't really care whether Obama or Hillary wins, if it we can't have Edwards (though I strooongly encourage voting for Edwards in the primaries, both for the off chance he can win and for the good chance he can drag the Overton Window to the left before one of the two centrists gets coronated -- with JRE as a possible king/queenmaker).

But your video link pushed me over the edge. This is what I heard:

“We're bogged down in the same arguments, and they’re not useful.” (The longstanding arguments of progressives against corrupt, authoritarian classism, sexism, racism, and warmongering are worthless)

“I didn’t come of age in the battles of the 60s...so I think I talk differently about issues and I think I talk differently about values, and that’s why I think we’ve been resonating.” (I’m not a dirty fucking hippie, I’m a Christian [he’s used “values” to mean religion more than enough times to be 100% sure that’s he blowing that Christianist dog whistle here], and that’s why people love me)

“Even when you discuss war, the frame of reference is all Vietnam. Well, that’s not my frame of reference, my frame of reference is what works.” (Boomers are stupid to think the Iraq War is like Vietnam, and their activism didn't mean shit)

“Even when I first opposed the war in Iraq, my first line was “I don’t oppose all wars” – specifically to make clear that this is not just a anti-military seventies love-in kind of approach.” (The protests against Vietnam were knee-jerk flower-power anti-militarism, not a voice of reason. I’m making a special point to encourage you to mock that kind of activism and that peacenik bullshit.)

Submitted by lambert on

The old can learn from the young. Watching the gradual success of the OFB, I'm persuaded that we haven't been vicious and personal enough, and who would ever have thought that? Chicago-style politics, indeed.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by lambert on

Better now than perfect, say I.

You can always promise part II later LIKE LEAH!

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

Don't forget flooding our nation's inner cities with crack cocaine to fund the same illegal war...

Anna Granfors's picture
Submitted by Anna Granfors on

...brought to you by...

The Village! our endorsement, and you're suddenly GOLDEN! The Village! available on media outlets *everywhere*!

Submitted by lambert on

Here's the full quote that I hope VL posts on:

“I didn’t come of age in the battles of the 60s, I’m not as invested in them. And so I think I talk differently about the issues and I think I talk differently about values. And that’s why I think we’ve been resonating with the American people. .. What I’m saying is the average Baby Boomer has moved beyond the arguments of the 60s but the politicians haven’t, we’re still having the same arguments. You know it’s all around cultural wars. … Even when you discuss war, the frame of reference is all Vietnam. That’s not my frame of reference, my frame of reference is what works. .. Even when I first opposed the war in Iraq, my first line was I don’t oppose all wars, … specifically to make clear that this is not just a anti-military, 70s love-in kind of approach.”

It certainly is a novel strategy, telling the base to go fuck themselves. I'm certainly feeling the Unity.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

It won't be so much parsing any of Obama's four-zillion accommodationist statements as much as a bigger-picture look at the Hillbama tradeoffs... and why we should support Edwards.

Submitted by lambert on

Stoller has the definitive takedown:

Those excesses, of course, were feminism, the consumer rights movement, the civil rights movement, the environmental movement, and the antiwar movement.

Obama's super atomic manure machine is really throwing a steaming load, this time.

Those "excesses" are things we--and especially by the youth of today--take completely for granted, and they made Obama (and Hillary's) campaigns fucking possible.

And, oh my goodness, there was so much money be made fighting sexism, or setting up citizen review boards, or going to work for an environmental law firm. Or going to jail to stop the war. Those silly, self-indulgent boomers, what were they thinking, harshing the mellow like that? Did they understand that the way to end racism it give racists respect? What is wrong with them? (Any wonder Obama endorser and Republican operative Bareback Andy--who, of course, in his marriage benefits from another 70s "excess," gay rights--wants to make obfuscate the work we did and make election a generational one? It's the only way that he, as a conservative operative, can kick the activists who gave him dignity in the teeth!)

You want to see "excess"? Look at the chart. Look at the top 1%. That's "excess," Obama you tool.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

Jeez, some of you are spiteful SOBs. So spiteful you can't distinguish differences between comments about Reagan's policy stances and appreciation for the ability of the man to capture 49 states. Seriously, any of you think Obama would get in there and govern like Reagan? Ask any Red Stater what his thoughts are on that. They know better, and so should most of you.

I'm telling you, someone is going to come along and unite this country. Now, it can either be a Republican or it can be a Democrat. You choose. McCain or Obama? Romney or Obama? Hillary can't do it...she's hated by 40% of the country. Edwards can't...he himself hates everyone who has any money. Or pretends to, anyways.

There's a new dynamic on the horizon. Let it rise, people. Let it rise.

Submitted by lambert on

McCain is going to unite the country?!?! Romney??? Where do you get the data for that, Dave? Who's going to help them? You? Are you one of the OFB who'd rather vote for McCain than Hillary?

Face it, any Democrat can win. All we want to make sure is that the candidates don't sell progressives down the river. Obama's bringing the right wing talking points, which are poison pills to progressive policies, so he gets pushback. What could be simpler?

And look, Dave, I know that "It's Reagan's ability to unite people, not Reagan's actual policies" is the current party line among the Oborg, who have now been called upon, yet again, to explain to those who keep track what Obama "really means" after another dogwhistle to the right, but please do see the comment above on "excesses" -- those excesses being the work done, by the very people Obama is dissing, that enabled Obama to run in the first place. The civil rights movement was not always "civil," in case you didn't know, and "unity" with racists was called the Southern Strategy. Obama's "excess" statement translates quite directly to Fuck the base, as I read it. Sure, it appeals to low information voters and Limbaugh listeners, but so what? If you think calling bullshit is spiteful, deal.

New tide rising? Yeah, maybe of pony shit from Obama's super atomic manure spreader. Get out of my way while I try to shovel.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Oborg free.

And then along came 'Dave'. Dave starts with the classic low-info Oborg tactic. The unsubstantiated assertion; that is,

I’m telling you, someone is going to come along and unite this country.

Got that folks? Oborg Dave is asserting, wholly on his own authority it would seem, that something that has never happened Senator 'Light and Hope' is gonna do. This nation's citizens have never, ever been of one voice. About anything as Dave the Oborg would know if he's bothered to learn a little about our nation's history.

And, in more OborgThink, he 'believes' that everyone being of one mind would be a 'good thing...'. Is that, pray tell, Dave the O sorta like Germany of the 30s? Because, Dave the O, Senator 'SnakeOil' reminds me on no one so much as Hitler with his assertion that it is he, him in his person and no other, who can 'heal the nation...' 'can unite...' us. All paraphrases of Herr Hitler Dave my man.

Besides Dave of little knowledge and less sense the 'nation' is already united. United by the folks who selected Clinton and Obama and McCain and Romney as 'acceptable' candidates and spent hundreds of millions brainwashing such as you to lift your arm in a salute to one of these.

And no other.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on


And I don’t believe the Phonebooth Theory, where Obama runs from the right, and then, once elected, jumps into a phone booth, loses the Clark Kent glasses and the suit, and emerges, garbed as Progressive Superman. That may have worked for Bush, but that’s because the Village was happy to have him go right. It won’t work for Obama, because the Village would not be happy to have him go left. And in any case, he was no mandate to go left, because he campaigned on right wing talking points. If indeed he does want to go left, which at this point I regard as at best unproven, vehement statements by the Oborg notwithstanding. The great thing about vacuous rhetoric is that you can project whatever you want into it.

Say it loud!! This is the money quote. When Bill Clinton won, he might have even wanted to keep his promises, but he famously was dragged right by Wall Street. Bush had no mandate whatsoever, in either election. Didn't stop "the Village" from crowning his ass. The only times the phone booth ever works to the left is in times of extreme crisis - Civil War or Depression (Depression + Red Menace, actually. Depression alone might not have been enough). Obama will have no such chance, no matter what he wants to do, and it's by no means a lock that he wants what his supporters want.

Good on Edwards that he hit Obama on Reagan. (finally) He must step out of his Obama junior tag team member role.

Submitted by lambert on

Kos calls bullshit on the "good ideas" attack, where Edwards followed suit.

Clinton could have done fine by sticking to the "policies" line (see above), and Edwards, especially could have dealt with the "excesses" line (ibid), but for whatever reason they muffed the attack. Kos rightly calls bullshit.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

There is no more ridiculous proposition than the need for unity. That isn’t a right-wing talking point; it’s a totalitarian talking point. Everyone on the same page, please, everyone in agreement so we don’t have to spend time on disagreement, that’s so uncivil, so ‘60’s and 70’s.

That would be the 1760’s and 1770’s, the first time Americans debated the whole unity thing and decided against it. The Revolution was a rebellion against unity. The Constitution was designed explicitly to prevent unity. All of the progress since then has been the result of deliberate efforts at disunity, of challenging conventional wisdom and common customs. Unity is what you get under Mao and Stalin and Mussolini, that sort of people. True American patriots are opposed to unity and will argue against conventional thinking just for the exercise, purely to make sure that not everybody is on the same page or even reading from the same book.

Obamaphile Dave has opinions:

“appreciation for the ability of the man to capture 49 states” The re-election of Ronald Reagan is without doubt the greatest foolishness and arguably the biggest single mistake in American history. By then Reagan was well into Alzheimers and barely able to find his own way from his bedroom to his desk. It was his criminal staff that created his image and sold it, from before he was governor of California. That the citizens of 49 states bought the lies of a criminal enterprise is not a testament to unity, it is a warning; without Reagan there would never have been a President Bush – either one of them – or massive deficits or this asinine war in Iraq.

“Ask any Red Stater what his thoughts are” The people who voted for Nixon and Reagan and the Bushes? What question would I ask them – Why are you people so fucking stupid? And why would I care about the answer? These people have gotten everything possible wrong for 40 years. The best decision I can make is to do the opposite of whatever they think.

“I’m telling you, someone is going to come along and unite this country.” Not if I can help it, Dave. Unity is the best way to guarantee that everyone is headed in the wrong direction. Consider me, and everyone like me, your sworn philosophical enemy.

“Edwards can’t…he himself hates everyone who has any money.” Edwards can’t be elected President because he hates the richest 1% of the country? That goes on everyone’s Top Ten Dumbest Reasons list. It’s precisely the reason why anyone sane is an Edwards supporter, and why anyone not part of the privileged 1% is a fool to support anyone else.

“There’s a new dynamic on the horizon. Let it rise, people. Let it rise.” Where can I get my nice new brown shirt? ‘Cause I sure want to fit right in and get with that rising new dynamic, boy oh boy, let me just step aside and get out of the way ‘cause there’s a Playah commin’ thru! Please. I don’t need a savior. I need somebody who will clean out the skunks and repair the mess they’ve made, not cozy up to them and wallow in the stench.

Unity can kiss my butt.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

This blog is right on. I'm so tired of people trusting in Obama's ability to be the "bridge between nations" and "unite America" and be the "force of change" when there is absolutely no proof that he has done any of these things, for the following reasons:

1-Obama voted for a 1.7 mill dollar border fence. Rather than being the bridge between nations, I believe, he is, quite literally, a wall.

2-Obama is running as the most "economically liberal" (which in basic terms means) the most CONSERVATIVE democratic candidate. Economic liberals believe in the self-adjusting mechanisms of the free market, meaning no welfare, no tax cuts for the poor, no increased spending on education. Obama approves of free trade sanctions for other countries, while hypocritically approving of subsidies that help unionized american workers. Let's flood the Mexican market with subsidized American goods, and pretend that we had absolutely nothing to do with the skyrocketing unemployment in Latin America when we passed NAFTA in the 90's. Let's build a border fence between Mexico and America, just to make sure we make it clear we had nothing to do with the dirt cheap prices of Mexican agriculture and starving wages of poor workers. Let's penalize the poorest of the poor because they're illegals when they attempt to cross the border out of mere desperation.

3-In the vein of free market economics - let's talk about Obama's health care plan, which doesn't "force" people to buy cheap health insurance - allowing healthy young people to abstain from buying insurance and driving the minimum price up for the old and the sick. Obama couches things like expensive health care under the classical conservative terms "freedom" and "choice", when the ultimate reality is that universal health care will be more expensive for all of us in his plan. Why not support Obama? Because you'll be paying more for it, that's why, and if you value your pockets at all, you should value your vote. In my view, there is no excuse for being the only developed country in the world without universal health care. It's beyond pathetic, and conservatives continue to couch this pathetic-ness under words like "freedom" and "choice".

4-Oh, but he also claims to understand the struggles of the working class, since in his speeches he claims that "in america even those of us who aren't rich can have access to a great education". Did he include himself in those statements? Because the last thing I have heard about him is that his mother was a PhD and his father a corrupt kenyan economist that went to Harvard for his PhD. OH yeah, he knows all about the struggles of the poor, the black and the middle class. So much so that people seem almost completely unaware that all of the other democratic primary candidates, including edwards, hillary, kucinich and richardson all come from MORE HUMBLE, working class backgrounds. So Hillary is a "washington insider" Who cares? Perhaps the reason that working class people vote for her, is that all the other democratic candidates, even hillary - ARE ACTUALLY from more humble, working class backgrounds.

5-And let's talk about the upcomign recession. I'm sure everyone has been watching the stock market fall down the drain. Since his policy aids are economic "liberals", Obama would vote against pumping money into the economy in the case of a recession. You can kiss that economic stimulus package goodbye, because he wont approve it once youve already voted for it.

6-So him calling Reagan an eternal optimist does make sense after all - someone that insists Reagan was a visionary, give the fact that Reagan did nothing to boost government spending during our recession in the eighties, a strategy that Obama promises to repeat should we fall into a depression in the next couple of years. What did Reagan leave us? Taxes for the unemployed. Yeah, Reagan loved the working class, just like Obama.

Yeah, expensive health care, talking about the immigration problem like a security issue, cutting back on social services during a depression, cutting down on spending, speaking about one of our most conservative presidents we've had as an optimist and unifying force, yeah, this guy isn't a wolf in sheep's clothing at all. I'll be voting for a black or latino candidate the day we have a black or latino candidate that ACTUALLY represents the views and interests of poor people and minorities in this country, or of any other country for that matter. I'll be voting for a black candidate the day a black candidate recognizes that all immigrants have an equal right to immigrate, not just wealthy immigrants with political connections like those in his family. This guy has the words "screw the liberal base, the working class base, and the immigrant base" all written in bright red all over his forehead. I'm happy to notice that other people on this blog have noticed it as well.

Beyond charisma and (perhaps) sex appeal, I don't see what Obama actually has to offer to the democratic core. Sure he looks nice in a suit. I'll invite him to my dinner party. But I won't vote for him.

Sincerely,

The only woman under 25 that seems to NOT have voted for Obama, in spite of the fact that he's Oh, so dreamy.