Corrente

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

The Obama campaign as hostile takeover

Think of it all as a hostile takeover, not yet accomplished but well on the way. Steps as follows:

1. OFB are noisy shareholders generating buzz

2. Investment bankers (the funders) supply the capital (teebee!)

3. Loss-making divisions -- working people, the poor, the old, anyone who needs government to work -- are downsized or cut loose; Donna Brazile was sending a message to the backers; it's just business.

4. Assets -- remaining reputation of Dem Party -- are stripped to repay the investment bankers (coal, nuclear)

5. The shell of the Party is sold to a bigger fool

6. All the players get good jobs in the Village and sleep the sleep of the righteous!

If the metaphor is right, there is a real difference between Hillary and Obama -- Step #3.

UPDATE Bottom line is that the Old Coalition thinks of political parties as a vehicle to achieve certain policy ends; maybe with the necessary degree of corrupt lubrication, but still. The investment bankers (and by extension the leaders of the New Coalition) think of political parties in exactly the same way that they think about everything else: As financial assets. Period. The financier's world view could be not unrelated to the curious vacuity of Obama's rhetoric, which has all the conceptual depth of a brochure for a "complex," "innovative" financial instrument. And we know how well that worked out. For us, anyhow.

UPDATE Needless to say, if this model is correct, issues like the restoration of Constitutional government are off the table. Why? They are public goods, not financial assets.

0
No votes yet

Comments

Submitted by katiebird (not verified) on

By George, I think you've got it.

Now what?

Submitted by lambert on

Of course. Like always.

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

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

orionATL's picture
Submitted by orionATL on

take a look at this article. it's not conclusive, but very suggestive, and worth much more investigating.

was howard dean, current dnc chairman, involved with barack obama’s rise to power?

check out this web log:

http://www.rezkowatch.blogspot.com.

according to an article entitled “obama and the plan for a “new democratic coalition” “, he was.

note: “new democratic coalition” is a phrase donna brazile likes to use.

howard dean supporters were designing obama’s career even before dean left the democratic race in feb, 2004.

so,

has dean placed impediments in clinton’s path to keep her from getting the democratic nomination?

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

that linked piece seems way off in many ways-- neither Obama nor Clinton nor any of the strains of Establishment/Powerful DC Dems are left in any tangible way, and it's more about protecting status quo and not wanting to alienate or rock boats, i think-- which is not elitist so much as it is totally beholden to big money/interests and those who fund and make or break candidates and officials along with keeping their own lifetime seats and committees and perks, etc.

They're very wealthy and powerful servants, but not serving us at all in any way.

whaleshaman's picture
Submitted by whaleshaman on

thanks for commenting.

I think I'll go read it again with your perspective in mind.

Maybe I can come back with some inteliigent viewpoints of my own. Wish me luck! ;-))

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

definitely....

i think he's anti-govt in general and kinda libertarian, while i'm for using govt to do good things that help people and the country move up and get better, etc.