One characteristic that separated Barack and HRC was the perception that Hillary was an almost-proud, pathological liar and hypocrite, her words and actions dictated by polling results, recommendations by cynical advisers concerned only with one goal: Victory. In contrast, Obama seemed the virtuous, idealistic, honest and, most important, ingenuous anti-Hillary.
The Wright fiasco has cost him that advantage forever.
It's obvious by now that he too, like his opponent, decided that to win the presidency a candidate needed to play the god card. Unfortunately for him, he choose from a deck of 53 cards, and wound up pulling the Joker. Perhaps Barack felt he could manage this obscure pastor from a local church, could trot him out on occasion to vouch for the candidate's bone fides, and then send him back to his obscurity.
But Wright was Wright; and Barack was wrong. And now his cynical ploy has come back to bite him like a pit bull.
Watching Wright perform in his 15 minutes of fame, it is impossible for one to think that a man of Barack Obama's intelligence could ever sincerely consider the good reverend his "spiritual adviser," way back when or now. But Obama could certainly see Wright as a useful stooge in the I-am-a-religious-man front needed to be an electable candidate in the current America.
Now the Barack sheen has lost some of its luster, the ontological difference between he and HRC has shrunk to a quantum distance.
He played the calculating games politicians play and for doing that, he became just another politician.
Showing posts with label Barack. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barack. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Monday, April 28, 2008
Obama: The Albatross Must Be Cut Loose
Ah ! well a-day ! what evil looks
Had I from old and young !
Instead of the cross, the Albatross
About my neck was hung.
-Coleridge, The Rime of the Ancient Mariner
Barack's got a big ,ole, fat one hanging around his neck these days, and it's one that may have the wherewithal to choke the life out of the Senator's up-to-now seemingly invincible march to the Democrat Party nomination and onward to the White House.
There's much speculation as to why Obama joined Rev. Wright's church in the first place. My belief, given the candidate's enormous intelligence and far-sightedness, is that Barack realized early on that any pol with hopes of being elected president one day needs to be able to at least pay (insincere) lip service to being a member of some organized religious institution, preferably one on his home turf.
He did some recon work in the hood, saw Wright's church close by, saw members dutifully reporting for duty and Sundays and, voila!, he had a church affiliation. Its membership was largely if not exclusively African-American; it was in close ontic proximity to his own residence so he wouldn't have to schlep too far on the occasional visits he knew he was obliged to make.
But Barack didn't seem to pay attention to the fact the the preacher of the church tended to rather inflammatory sermons whose ontological proximity to Obama's thoughts were as far removed as was the church building close.
Surmising that he didn't attend services on any kind of regular basis, and that when he was actually there, the last thing on his mind was listening to some ranting showman in costume on stage.
Now he's paying the price for his politically motivated hypocrisy.
HRC and McCain have hung the good Reverend around Obama's neck like a wreath of glimmering gold. And the good man of god that he certainly is, Wright is milking every second of his 15 minutes of fame, the damage to his church member be--like America--damned!
What the hell can Barack do to de-couple himself from this relic of a bygone era in American race relations? (BTW, this is also a question Johnny Mac is going to have to ponder regarding de-coupling him from Bush.)
Obama has already began the process by roundly denouncing some of Wright's more outrageous, ignorant utterance, using incrementally stronger and stronger language as the fiasco plays out. But the second problem that he's got to address is: Why has it taken the public broadcast of the Wright tapes to spur Barack's denunciations? Where were these opinions the last 20 years? That's a major league curveball question. But that's the test of a major league hitter...tons of guys can hit the fastball, but the guys who make it to the majors gotta be able to hit the curveball too.
None of the very few options Obama has on question 2 are very attractive. He can simply be honest, implicitly admit a bit of hypocrisy is showing, and say he hardly went to the church and that when he did it was merely to be among the neighborhood folk whom he represented...it was more a social than a deep religious event for him. Wright's sermons were epiphenomal to social aspects of church attendance that Barack enjoyed.
He can plunge the knife into the nattily attired Reverend even deeper by saying something like, "Jeremiah needed to rile up the congregation a little, get 'em shouting and yelling and in the mood to contribute...it goes with the territory, along with serious counseling work and spiritual education. There aren't many similarities, but pastoring and politicking do cross paths at times...."
But, obviously, Barack, since he is soooo elite, much be constantly on guard of saying something that will further reinforce that opinion of him with the masses, both white and non-white.
Finally, Obama can try to kill two birds with one stone (pardon the [albatross] pun,) by linking Rev. Wright and John McCain as "good" men from another time, another era. "Their values were formed when the country was in turmoil, be it the Vietnam War, the Cold War with the USSR, or the civil rights movement. They grew up in a time when African-Americans couldn't drink from the same public water fountains as white people; and a time when soldiers were being spat upon on the street of the United States. Men like Wright and McCain need our understanding, not more of our hate...."
The problem facing Obama is not going to die a natural death from lack of attention. It needs proactive eradication, and soon.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Speaking the Unspeakable: A Lesson in Modern Politics for Barack
Obama's remarks are reminiscent of John Kerry's to some student assembly (as I recall) during his campaign. He urged his audience members to stay and do well in school or "you'll wind up in Iraq," or words the that effect.
His opponents accused him of showing disrespect for those in uniform; of being an elitist; and all the other usual accusations that follow a remark as un-politic as Kerry's.
This time around, the un-politic remarks have come during the primary season. So it's fellow-democrat Hillary who is leading the charge to paint Obama as a man out of touch with the common people, the working folk.
There are several points of interest in this (and the Kerry) brouhaha:
1. The underlying veracity of the statements are not an issue. In fact, Obama now and Kerry then are being castigated for truth-telling, perhaps the greatest vice any politician can have.
2. Over and over and over again, candidates have--usually unwittingly--displayed the fact that they are as far removed from the bus driver, cashier, assembly-line worker, as are Madonna or A-Rod. Yet politicians are required to perpetuate a mythology that even the common wo/man doesn't himself take seriously.
3. The real insult to all the Average Joe's and Joan's is that true, dyed-in-the-wool pols, like HRC, interact with them as if they were children in need of being told fairy tales only, lest the truth, the reality, of situations scare them like the bogeyman scares a 5-year-old. In short, these average people are there only to be manipulated, cajoled, pacified; the goal is getting their vote every few years, period.
Kerry speaks the Truth. He's crucified by his political enemies.
Obama allows Truth to spew from his mouth; HRC is right there to make him pay for it.
[Note: There is an argument that can be made that Barack and John, by speaking the unspeakable, have thereby shown themselves to be inferior politicians, politicians who are unlikely to win elections, especially presidential ones. This may, indeed, be a valid argument. If so, it makes me shudder.]
His opponents accused him of showing disrespect for those in uniform; of being an elitist; and all the other usual accusations that follow a remark as un-politic as Kerry's.
This time around, the un-politic remarks have come during the primary season. So it's fellow-democrat Hillary who is leading the charge to paint Obama as a man out of touch with the common people, the working folk.
There are several points of interest in this (and the Kerry) brouhaha:
1. The underlying veracity of the statements are not an issue. In fact, Obama now and Kerry then are being castigated for truth-telling, perhaps the greatest vice any politician can have.
2. Over and over and over again, candidates have--usually unwittingly--displayed the fact that they are as far removed from the bus driver, cashier, assembly-line worker, as are Madonna or A-Rod. Yet politicians are required to perpetuate a mythology that even the common wo/man doesn't himself take seriously.
3. The real insult to all the Average Joe's and Joan's is that true, dyed-in-the-wool pols, like HRC, interact with them as if they were children in need of being told fairy tales only, lest the truth, the reality, of situations scare them like the bogeyman scares a 5-year-old. In short, these average people are there only to be manipulated, cajoled, pacified; the goal is getting their vote every few years, period.
Kerry speaks the Truth. He's crucified by his political enemies.
Obama allows Truth to spew from his mouth; HRC is right there to make him pay for it.
[Note: There is an argument that can be made that Barack and John, by speaking the unspeakable, have thereby shown themselves to be inferior politicians, politicians who are unlikely to win elections, especially presidential ones. This may, indeed, be a valid argument. If so, it makes me shudder.]
Friday, April 11, 2008
McCain vs. Ageism: "I'm as Old as Dirt and Have More Scars Than Frankenstein."
Interestingly, the one candidate (or surrogate, pre-Dean) who most often raises the age issue is none other than its supposed victim: John McCain himself.
"Older than dirt, more scars than Frankenstein," is a favorite line of his. (though he did botch it at least once.)
So, obviously, McCain is well aware that his age, and the concomitant off-spring issues spawned by it--his death in office, his forgetfulness or seeming befuddlement, the unusual importance of his VP running mate and so on--are issues that will always already be there in voters minds.
His age, like Hillary's gender and Barack's color, are facts, period, facts visible to the naked eyes of voters. They can't be spun or otherwise hidden from public view. And to some, they would be considered "negatives."
Maybe McCain's strategy of raising the age issue himself at almost every opportunity is his way of disarming or charming his adversaries by reducing the issue to the category of joke.
After all, jokes aren't made about Iraq, nor about the financial/housing crises---they're serious issues. But "age?"
It's the stuff Letterman, Leno & Co. can mine night after night, without concern for any negative sympathy-based responses from their audiences. The late-night comics would never ridicule someone whose has lost an arm or leg, or suffers from any physical malady.
The dems can beat McCain on the real, non-laughable issues; they run the risk of a sympathy backlash if they hit him too hard on his age. He can joke about it himself; Letterman can do the "10 Ways You Know John McCain is Awake" monologue every night---but gratuitous, duplicitous remarks such as Dean's only feed the public's perception that politicians are slime.
"Older than dirt, more scars than Frankenstein," is a favorite line of his. (though he did botch it at least once.)
So, obviously, McCain is well aware that his age, and the concomitant off-spring issues spawned by it--his death in office, his forgetfulness or seeming befuddlement, the unusual importance of his VP running mate and so on--are issues that will always already be there in voters minds.
His age, like Hillary's gender and Barack's color, are facts, period, facts visible to the naked eyes of voters. They can't be spun or otherwise hidden from public view. And to some, they would be considered "negatives."
Maybe McCain's strategy of raising the age issue himself at almost every opportunity is his way of disarming or charming his adversaries by reducing the issue to the category of joke.
After all, jokes aren't made about Iraq, nor about the financial/housing crises---they're serious issues. But "age?"
It's the stuff Letterman, Leno & Co. can mine night after night, without concern for any negative sympathy-based responses from their audiences. The late-night comics would never ridicule someone whose has lost an arm or leg, or suffers from any physical malady.
The dems can beat McCain on the real, non-laughable issues; they run the risk of a sympathy backlash if they hit him too hard on his age. He can joke about it himself; Letterman can do the "10 Ways You Know John McCain is Awake" monologue every night---but gratuitous, duplicitous remarks such as Dean's only feed the public's perception that politicians are slime.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
McCain's an Old Fashioned "Character"
We used to refer to people like John McCain as being a "character." It was neither a compliment nor a slur, but implicitly implied a certain fondness for, and uniqueness about, those so designated.
The last thing someone would say about Barack or Al Gore or HRC or Mitt Romney or John Edwards was that any of them were "characters."
Bill Clinton, now that he finds himself no longer enjoying the isolation from the public that does a sitting president, is beginning to earn his "a character" stripes by finger pointing, red faced televised arguments with members of the unwashed masses who suddenly can get right in his face and disagree with him.
McCain, however, seems to take pride in being a character. Reports of his cursing colleagues in the House and Senate, throwing punches at a freshman congressman twice his size, being a real-life fighter pilot during wartime, mingling with the reporters on his campaign bus and taking all questions "on the record," they're all worthy actions of a character.
He seems, like I have read Harry Truman also seemed, to be comfortable with who and what he is, grievous flaws and all.
Although he does claim expertise in national security/foreign policy matters, he doesn't pretend an intellectual's status in those realms; it's his experience that he cites. He frequently is the butt of his own jokes mocking his age and his battered appearance; he's hardly humble, but somehow gives the impression that he is---in short, he's a "character."
And that's refreshing to a lot of Americans. His positions on some issues may be somewhat ambiguous and subject to change, he may be vulgar in private exchanges, but he himself remains who is he, take it or leave it.
Frankly, I don't think he'd hesitate to hop in an F-15 and drop a few loads onto Sadr City even now. So to imagine that it takes an act of courage to venture into enclaves of unarmed democrats of any race or color is just plain silly.
He'll go, he'll answer questions, maybe argue with a few of the questioners, poke fun at himself whenever possible, hoping his "I am what you see," approach might at least make some in the audience less hostile to his candidacy, perhaps even snatch a couple of votes from his foray behind enemy lines.
But it will be another another episode of gutsiness, if not intelligence, that he'll come away with. And no presidential candidate has suffered election harm by being considered too gutsy.
Even against the brilliant, erudite, handsome, articulate, seemingly flawless Barack Obama, Bulldog McCain will give him a fight.
The last thing someone would say about Barack or Al Gore or HRC or Mitt Romney or John Edwards was that any of them were "characters."
Bill Clinton, now that he finds himself no longer enjoying the isolation from the public that does a sitting president, is beginning to earn his "a character" stripes by finger pointing, red faced televised arguments with members of the unwashed masses who suddenly can get right in his face and disagree with him.
McCain, however, seems to take pride in being a character. Reports of his cursing colleagues in the House and Senate, throwing punches at a freshman congressman twice his size, being a real-life fighter pilot during wartime, mingling with the reporters on his campaign bus and taking all questions "on the record," they're all worthy actions of a character.
He seems, like I have read Harry Truman also seemed, to be comfortable with who and what he is, grievous flaws and all.
Although he does claim expertise in national security/foreign policy matters, he doesn't pretend an intellectual's status in those realms; it's his experience that he cites. He frequently is the butt of his own jokes mocking his age and his battered appearance; he's hardly humble, but somehow gives the impression that he is---in short, he's a "character."
And that's refreshing to a lot of Americans. His positions on some issues may be somewhat ambiguous and subject to change, he may be vulgar in private exchanges, but he himself remains who is he, take it or leave it.
Frankly, I don't think he'd hesitate to hop in an F-15 and drop a few loads onto Sadr City even now. So to imagine that it takes an act of courage to venture into enclaves of unarmed democrats of any race or color is just plain silly.
He'll go, he'll answer questions, maybe argue with a few of the questioners, poke fun at himself whenever possible, hoping his "I am what you see," approach might at least make some in the audience less hostile to his candidacy, perhaps even snatch a couple of votes from his foray behind enemy lines.
But it will be another another episode of gutsiness, if not intelligence, that he'll come away with. And no presidential candidate has suffered election harm by being considered too gutsy.
Even against the brilliant, erudite, handsome, articulate, seemingly flawless Barack Obama, Bulldog McCain will give him a fight.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
HRC Takes the Low Road, Out of Necessity
A Republican looking at the situation might regard HRC's winning the nomination as the direct result of those super-delegates casting their lots with her--irrespective of her performance in the primaries that lie ahead--as an issue gift from heaven.
Already seen as a slick, pro-pol by everyone, Hillary instantly becomes the candidate of "backroom deals, I'll scratch your back, you scratch mine" politics that voters of both parties claim to loath. That in contrast to the McCain-as-Maverick image that John has so carefully constructed over the years.
HRC is no longer a viable candidate for the office of the President of the United States, though she still may be able to slime her way to the Democratic Party nomination through transparently undemocratic means.
Mark Penn's (HRC's Chief Strategist) crude remark in his memo regarding the "more you know about Barack Obama" the less attractive he becomes as a candidate is another example of the hatchet-woman campaign HRC has decided to run, notwithstanding the fact that her own claims to be "Ready From Day One" as CinC have crumbled under even the slightest of media scrutiny.
The longer she lingers, the longer the media gives her exposure befitting a candidate with a real, not wishful, chance of success, the more her campaign turns into nothing more than an attempt at deconstructing Obama's...the more the Republicans can sit back in quiet glee, as their guy visits with Heads of State, cavorting around the world as if her were already POTUS.
Already seen as a slick, pro-pol by everyone, Hillary instantly becomes the candidate of "backroom deals, I'll scratch your back, you scratch mine" politics that voters of both parties claim to loath. That in contrast to the McCain-as-Maverick image that John has so carefully constructed over the years.
HRC is no longer a viable candidate for the office of the President of the United States, though she still may be able to slime her way to the Democratic Party nomination through transparently undemocratic means.
Mark Penn's (HRC's Chief Strategist) crude remark in his memo regarding the "more you know about Barack Obama" the less attractive he becomes as a candidate is another example of the hatchet-woman campaign HRC has decided to run, notwithstanding the fact that her own claims to be "Ready From Day One" as CinC have crumbled under even the slightest of media scrutiny.
The longer she lingers, the longer the media gives her exposure befitting a candidate with a real, not wishful, chance of success, the more her campaign turns into nothing more than an attempt at deconstructing Obama's...the more the Republicans can sit back in quiet glee, as their guy visits with Heads of State, cavorting around the world as if her were already POTUS.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
HRC Has Reached Also-Ran Status
When will the mainstream media relegate Hillary to second tier coverage?
In sports competitions, like the pennant races in MLB, for example, once a team is mathematically eliminated from making the playoffs, the national sports media ignores them in their coverage of the race for the playoffs.
HRC has been mathematically defeated. It's over.
Yet she is still receives the coverage only due a contender.
The press should be focusing on McCain and Obama, not on the exaggerations and outright falsehoods still being spewed by the desperate Clinton campaign apparatus.
The "Ready From Day One" nonsense that served as the foundation for her candidacy has crumbled. Her "experience" assertions have proven to be illusionary, padded accounts of typical First Lady duties. And beyond her First Lady experience lies nothing.
The media needs to toss John and Barack onto the grill, light the charcoal, and begin roasting these two guys; expose their strengths and weaknesses; deconstruct their campaign platitudes; see which one can take the heat and which one cannot.
Wasting resources on HRC serves no useful purpose any longer. She's out of the pennant race and needs to be covered as the sports media covers the also-rans.
The public has sufficiently seen what's there...and the public has said, No Thanks.
In sports competitions, like the pennant races in MLB, for example, once a team is mathematically eliminated from making the playoffs, the national sports media ignores them in their coverage of the race for the playoffs.
HRC has been mathematically defeated. It's over.
Yet she is still receives the coverage only due a contender.
The press should be focusing on McCain and Obama, not on the exaggerations and outright falsehoods still being spewed by the desperate Clinton campaign apparatus.
The "Ready From Day One" nonsense that served as the foundation for her candidacy has crumbled. Her "experience" assertions have proven to be illusionary, padded accounts of typical First Lady duties. And beyond her First Lady experience lies nothing.
The media needs to toss John and Barack onto the grill, light the charcoal, and begin roasting these two guys; expose their strengths and weaknesses; deconstruct their campaign platitudes; see which one can take the heat and which one cannot.
Wasting resources on HRC serves no useful purpose any longer. She's out of the pennant race and needs to be covered as the sports media covers the also-rans.
The public has sufficiently seen what's there...and the public has said, No Thanks.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Who Has Home-Field Advantage in a Mud-Wrestling Bout?
The singular phenomenon that has become known as Barack Obama became such because a large segment of the (Democrat) voting public interpreted his words, his demeanor, his aura, even his physical presence as being something other than the typical politician's.
Ironically, he was seen as a White Knight astride a sturdy steed gazing down upon his mud-covered opponents. He was clean; they were not. Although obviously in the fray, he somehow seemed simultaneously above it. He alone was the non-scumbag of the bunch---his passionate desire was to win, not to destroy. Somehow, people could not envision him in some hotel room being counselled by such creatures as Rove or Carville or Penn or Rollins. Barack was clean, no steroids, no HGH. It was the other guys who were "juiced," not him.
Maybe Bill Clinton was correct after all when he described the Obama-phenomenon as "a fairytale."
If he suddenly decides to play on HRC's turf, he's giving up the home-field advantage. She and her team are the undisputed heavyweight champs of mud-wrestling. And maybe, in the final analysis, politics is the ultimate form of mud-wrestling. But perhaps a potential president needs a little dirt under his fingernails to handle the job he or she is seeking. And, if that is the reality, Barack must enter the ring.
As an idealistic, overly romantic fool, the White Knight scenario captures my heart. And yet, the pragmatic, realist side of me is not totally convinced that rolling in the dirt with dogs is the way Barack is going to win.
Ironically, he was seen as a White Knight astride a sturdy steed gazing down upon his mud-covered opponents. He was clean; they were not. Although obviously in the fray, he somehow seemed simultaneously above it. He alone was the non-scumbag of the bunch---his passionate desire was to win, not to destroy. Somehow, people could not envision him in some hotel room being counselled by such creatures as Rove or Carville or Penn or Rollins. Barack was clean, no steroids, no HGH. It was the other guys who were "juiced," not him.
Maybe Bill Clinton was correct after all when he described the Obama-phenomenon as "a fairytale."
If he suddenly decides to play on HRC's turf, he's giving up the home-field advantage. She and her team are the undisputed heavyweight champs of mud-wrestling. And maybe, in the final analysis, politics is the ultimate form of mud-wrestling. But perhaps a potential president needs a little dirt under his fingernails to handle the job he or she is seeking. And, if that is the reality, Barack must enter the ring.
As an idealistic, overly romantic fool, the White Knight scenario captures my heart. And yet, the pragmatic, realist side of me is not totally convinced that rolling in the dirt with dogs is the way Barack is going to win.
Hillary's Game: Reflecting the Starlight of Others
HRC's "lifetime of experience" consists in being married to a CinC during his eight years in office. She never served in the military, of course, and her combat experience probably consists of a pillow fight or two between her Wellesley sorority sisters and perhaps a bunch of fraternity boys. The sheer audacity of equating herself to McCain in the sphere of Commander of the military is exceeded only by her insinuations that Obama is somehow not in the McCain-Clinton league as far as national security/military matters are concerned.
Hillary is a professional coattail rider. She's riding Bill's, obviously; otherwise she would be as serious a candidate as the junior Senator from Oklahoma (whoever that may be.) But at least Bill is her husband. Now she is trying to attach herself to the coattails of the man she ostensibly is attempting to make her adversary in November. She likes glorying in the reflected light of stars. Stars radiate their own light; and, like them or not, Bill and McCain generate their own light---they are stars. Hillary lives in the reflection of the light of true stars, being incapable of generating light herself.
Unfortunately for her, she currently finds herself up against an opponent--Barrack-who has star power: again, like him or not, he radiates his own light and need not worry about catching the rays from another. So what does she do? She proposes that Barack be her running mate. Why? So she can capture the light he radiates and claim it is her own.
Hillary demeans not only herself, but the whole premise of the independent female making a serious run for the presidency when she reverts to the basking in some other individuals glory, especially when she chooses two stars that are male.
Obama's response to this pathetic line of attack against him should drip with sarcasm, but not so much that voters again feeling sorry for poor Hillary.
With the singular exception of Dwight Eisenhower, who served as Supreme Allied Commander in WWII (a fairly impressive rank, don't you think?), no candidate in recent times has ever been patently "qualified" to assume the CinC role, including McCain, Obama and HRC. But to make her "lifetime of experience" the lynchpin of her campaign is one of the great strategic blunders perpetrated by any campaign in recent memory---the public is just not that dumb.
Hillary is a professional coattail rider. She's riding Bill's, obviously; otherwise she would be as serious a candidate as the junior Senator from Oklahoma (whoever that may be.) But at least Bill is her husband. Now she is trying to attach herself to the coattails of the man she ostensibly is attempting to make her adversary in November. She likes glorying in the reflected light of stars. Stars radiate their own light; and, like them or not, Bill and McCain generate their own light---they are stars. Hillary lives in the reflection of the light of true stars, being incapable of generating light herself.
Unfortunately for her, she currently finds herself up against an opponent--Barrack-who has star power: again, like him or not, he radiates his own light and need not worry about catching the rays from another. So what does she do? She proposes that Barack be her running mate. Why? So she can capture the light he radiates and claim it is her own.
Hillary demeans not only herself, but the whole premise of the independent female making a serious run for the presidency when she reverts to the basking in some other individuals glory, especially when she chooses two stars that are male.
Obama's response to this pathetic line of attack against him should drip with sarcasm, but not so much that voters again feeling sorry for poor Hillary.
With the singular exception of Dwight Eisenhower, who served as Supreme Allied Commander in WWII (a fairly impressive rank, don't you think?), no candidate in recent times has ever been patently "qualified" to assume the CinC role, including McCain, Obama and HRC. But to make her "lifetime of experience" the lynchpin of her campaign is one of the great strategic blunders perpetrated by any campaign in recent memory---the public is just not that dumb.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
