Obama and the American Lefts: Part I
By Sam Copeland on January 13, 2009 at 7:44 PM in Current Affairs
[NQ Note: We are pleased to present another essay in two parts by a brilliant political strategist who blogs under the name “Sam Copeland.” Sam is an expert in political persuasion and worked at the highest level of the Clinton campaign. We plan to publish part II tomorrow morning.]
Will Rogers famously said: “I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat.”
The inauguration of a new President is a good time to take stock of the current disorganization of the Democratic Party.
Bud White has it right: there really are two Democratic Parties.
The American left is split into two groups – a leftist wing that tends towards socialism and pacifism and a centrist wing – an All-American Liberal wing – that supports a liberal version of capitalism and a strong defense.
The centrist All-American Liberal wing supports free trade but wants it to be fair trade too. Free markets are important for economic well-being, but government has a role in checking abuses and, in an oft-forgotten phrase from the progressive era, regulating combinations in restraint of trade. The federal government should be lean and efficient and not bloated (the leftist view) or non-existent (the neo-con view).
Government spending is about investing in the future of the nation to stimulate economic growth and to enhance citizen well-being. Governments are instituted to protect the right to life, liberty, and happiness of every man and woman. Foreign policy follows the edict of Teddy Roosevelt – walk softly but carry a big stick.
This split in the American left goes back to at least the era of FDR and Truman.
For example, Truman was flanked on his left in the 1948 election by FDR’s former Vice Presedent Henry Wallace. In the late 1960s, the book The Greening of America codified this split as the New Left of the radical ‘60s left – which emphasized consciousness raising and symbols of change – and the Old Left of the New Deal era which emphasized more concrete economic and policy changes in support of the workers’ middle class.
Today, the leftist wing of the Democratic Party is represented by Reid, Pelosi, and Dean whereas the All-American Liberal wing finds its champions in Bill and Hillary Clinton.
Barack Obama became the selected nominee of the Democratic Party by appealing to the leftist-wing. He told the left-wing specifically what they wanted to hear about Iraq (it was wrong and we will withdraw on timetables), vaguely what they wanted to hear on economics (a hope message long on rhetoric and short on specifics), and most importantly satisfied their social identity needs to be seen as different, unique, radical, and special. Although Obama received a half a million fewer votes than Hillary Clinton, he could depend on his champion Howard Dean to manipulate the Democratic primary rules so that those votes weren’t counted in places such as Florida and Michigan.
Senator Obama became President Obama, thanks to George W. Bush. The election was close until the economic meltdown. This meltdown was the fruit of Bush’s insane neo-con economic policy. The political fall-out was a complete rejection of the Republicans at the polls by an angry American public.
Now, a funny thing happen to Barack Obama on the way to his inauguration. He became a Clintonista! During the primaries, he ridiculed the economic policies of Bill Clinton. By the end of the general election, he was claiming to bear the mantle of Clinton-nomics. Once elected, he appointed Clintonista after Clintonista to high government office, including the top Clintonista to the top spot – Senator Clinton to be the Secretary of State. The former President, who Obama’s wife once called a racist, became a co-chair of his inauguration. In contrast, Howard Dean, expecting a cabinet-level appointment, was thrown under the bus along with other leftist-wing supporters who hoped for policy-making positions in the new government.
I must admit my surprise at what I have seen. As Clintonista after Clintonista was appointed to government positions I couldn’t believe my eyes. In hindsight, I shouldn’t have been so surprised. Obama’s rise to power – from neighborhood to state district to state and now to nation – has been marked by his development of a loyal band of supporters who help him win at one level only to be discarded as he sets his eyes on a new political prize. Obama moves from one political position to another with ease. He has advanced 7 different positions on the Iraq war** and, save for Bill Clinton, no one seemed to notice or care. Bill Clinton was called a racist for his efforts. Obama’s tendency to throw supporters under the bus should serve as a warning to Clintonistas in his administration.
Why this transformation? Your guess is as good as mine. A friend of mine who isn’t heavily involved in politics offered what is as good an explanation as any. When he watched the Chicago media event staged just after Obama was declared the winner of the Presidential election, he noted that everyone was smiling save for Barack Obama. It was as if Obama was thinking, “Oh shit, now what?” Obama has never been in a real position of leadership in his entire life and now he finds himself in the most demanding leadership position in the world. What to do? Well, you go and find the people who actually succeeded in running the country and put them in charge. Those folks happen to be Clinonistas.
If you are a centrist All-American Liberal, how you perceive this transformation of Barack Obama depends on whether you are a pessimist, an optimist, or an engineer.
The pessimist sees the glass as half empty and says, “We should and could have Hillary Clinton in charge.”
The optimist looks at the half full glass and says, “It could have been worst. Obama could have put the Howard Deans of the world in charge.”
The engineer looks at the half-full/half-empty glass and asks, “Why does this glass have wasted capacity? Why isn’t Hillary Clinton in charge?”
Now that Obama has shown Clintonista tendencies, the answer to the engineer’s question should concern him greatly. His political success depends on it! The answer can be seen in events that happened in the early part of the Clinton Presidency, which I will discuss in my next post, Obama and the American Lefts, Part II.
** Obama’s 7 positions on the Iraq war include: (1) early opposition in 2002; (2) as a US Senate candidate he called for a surge and said withdrawal on timetables would insult our troops; (3) as a US Senator he took the mainstream Democratic position of complaining about the war but continuing the funding unlike true progressives such as Feingold who tried to stop the funding; (4) at the beginning of the primaries, he took the same position as Hillary Clinton of smart withdrawal – doing the diplomatic work so we could withdraw our troops; (5) gaining no political traction with position #4, Obama called for withdrawal on timetables in 16 months; (6) receiving the nomination, Obama said he would leave residual troops in Iraq to fight al Qaeda; and (7) as the general election wears on Obama says he will listen to his generals about withdrawal from Iraq.
(Release: November 13)
on sale for only $16.95.
has a spatula.)
8% Off at $11.95, with a rare five-star ranking by 294 customers: 
And check out these: 
("This crazy redhead is on to something. Her pink Rambler story alone is worth the price of the book," writes 
- “Richard Sale’s reportage on Washington, the CIA, the American armed forces, and foreign intrigue has created a perfect background for this account of the steady growth of President Clinton as a master of the game of nations.”--W. Patrick Lang, former head of Middle East Operations, DIA
"Anne C. Heller's stunning biography of Ayn Rand" uses a "plethora of newly unearthed research and fresh insight."
Hah! Without Hillary and Bill, bho the fraud is toast. He will eventually be toast anyway.
He’s not planning okn going away, heavens help us:
111th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. J. RES. 5
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 6, 2009
Mr. SERRANO introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:
‘Article–
‘The twenty-second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.’.
Don’t dare to think that way even in jest. I’ll have nightmares tonight just from reading your comment.
They have tried this with Regan and then wanted it to be retroactive. No news here…Every fanatical cheer leader in Congress has their time for submitting this resolution for their proclaimed “hero”.
Who votes for these people?
Don’t worry, Obama won’t live that long. He’s a smoker – his parents died young.
Doesn’t this need to have the ok of 2/3 of the Senate and be ratified by 3/4 of the States? Then it would only apply to presidents who take office after Obama.
No wonder Obama said he would raise FICA taxes in 2019.
Heh. Wouldn’t it be funny if it passed and the Big Dog decided to run again?
It would freakin’ GREAT!
This is a bunch of crap – seriously. why do intelligent sounding people simply make things up. Bill was NOT called a racist because of what he said about Obama’s Iraq War position. He was called on making some very inappropriate comments about Obama’s campaign being a fairy tle AND dismissing his victory in S. Carolina as ‘another African American also won here’ ie., big deal, his victory doesn’t mean much.
period. obama himself NEVER called Clinton, either one, a racist and neither did Obama’s wife. The kool aid you accuse Obama supporters of drinking is a drop in the bucket compared to the gallons Hillary fans drink every day – its sickening. they are both excellent candidates and will have their chance to shine. leave it at that. this is a stupid article all the way – shows absolutely NO thought or depth – just ranting from an Obama-hater. so tiring.
yeah that might be believable if BOBO and company didn’t send out the memo of all the “racially insensitive” things Big Dog and Hillary supposedly did, prior to south carolina.
How the hell were Clinton’s comments “very inappropriate”? Obama himself described his campaign as being a fairy tale, and the comment about the SC primary was quite factual. Jess Jackson (a Black man) did win the state before. Clinton’s comment was that Obama was expected to win SC without any trouble simply because of the demographics of SC Democrats. A bit over half (~55%) of all Democrats in the state ARE African-American, and African-Americans are more prone to vote for an African-American candidate over a White (or any other ethnic category) candidate when they have the opportunity. Believe me, I live in a Southern state and see it all too frequently. (For some reason, this type of “preference voting” is not deemed “racist” but when Whites or Latinos or Asian-Americans choose to vote for “one of their own” over another ethnic category candidate when given the choice, it is deemed “racist”.)
AND, given the fact that Obama DID win more than 95% of the African-American vote in every Democratic primary where African-Americans made up more than 40% of a state’s Democratic voters–or more than 25% of the state’s total population (and, if you’ll look at all the Southern primaries, you’ll see that holds fairly consistent), I don’t see how Clinton’s comments were “racist”–they were fact.
Suck it up, Ellen.
As to Michelle, don’t forget that SHE did state–quite explicitly–that she would find it difficult to vote for Hillary as President if Hillary had won the Democratic primary. On the other hand, she had no problem calling for Hillary (and Bill) to admit (long before the primaries were done) that they would support Obama, and Mi-she-devil did make more than a few comments STRONGLY IMPLYING that a white person who didn’t vote for Barack was a racist. (As to Barack’s own cries of “racist”, go back and reread his little comments made in San Francisco. Exactly what is one supposed to make of a man using the term “bitter” to describe people who have trouble voting for someone “different” from them? Do you honestly believe Obama simply meant “Senators from Illinois” or “arugula eaters”? As they say, “if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s more than likely a duck”.)
Here is the transcript of the alledged race-baiting incident.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/01/lin-his-own-wor.html
What was bullsh.it was for the media, the Kennedy/Kerry connection, and an army of Obama surrogates to take this and take down Hillary and Bill Clinton by implying they are racist. While the Obama’s ran around making references like “typical white person”, “bitter people clinging to God and guns”, “sloth-like people with broken souls” etc.
Supposed credible media people like Tim Russert (God rest his soul) stating repeadetly that Bill Clinton was playing the race card. Based on what?
Look at the Clinton’s history with the AA community.
What was it that motivated people to ignore one couple’s racists comment and invent them for another? The perpetuate it in venemous fashion.
Is there some internal gult? Some reverse racism thing going on?
This election was an engineered internal coupe with in the Democratic party.While admitly Hillary’s camapign rana less then stellar campaign, the media, the DNC, and faction of the party are what took her down.
Intelligent people know that Bill Clinton said none of the stuff you site. you’ve drunk the Kool-aid Sweetie. And even if he did criticize (which he didn’t, but you Obots don’t understand that because you’re too young to remember Bill Clinton and how great he was–that’s how the ‘Bama camp managed to brainwash you) Obie, it was a political campaign. You hit the opposition in a political campaign–Obama certainly did and he said much worse things than fairy tale of racism. I WATCHED one video where he got up in front of a group African American and said (and I quote) “Hillary is a bitch, she’s just a bitch.” But you “youth” voters see nothing wrong with calling a former, great Democratic First Lady filthy names. That’s the nature of Obama supporters. Or how about asking Chelsea: “How did your mother react when she found your Dad was having an affair with Monica?” Yah, that’s real class.
That is a lie — Bill Clinton never called Obama’s campaign or candidacy a fair tale — he called his position on the Iraq war a fairy tale re withdrawal — which it was.
That is a lie — Bill Clinton never called Obama’s campaign or candidacy a fairy tale — he called his position on the Iraq war a fairy tale re withdrawal — which it was.
Obama is always for himself, never for his supporters or for the country. Just as he started his planning to become POTUS on the day one he became a US senator, now his paramount concern is to win a second term. For that he needs a proven team. The only proven team in democratic party is clinton team. So he picked up the Clintonistas so that he gains a second term. Once he gains the second term, he thinks about his legacy. At that time, he may throw the clintonistas under the bus or not depending on his needs at that time.
Obama will throw the “Clintonistas” under the bus as they will be a threat to distract away from his wonderfulness. GACK!!!
Any discussion of issues related to the Democratic Party that does not begin with something like, ‘the private club whose primary mission is to get club candidates onto the ballots in the states and who successfully installed BO as President by Certifying, absent any evidence, he was Constitutionally eligible for the job…’ lends an air of legitimacy to these traitors not merited by the facts.
Very well written. I believe he did whatever it took to become President … they ALL do. I don’t really fault him for that.Politics is a filthy job which requires one to wrestle naked in the mud and if you can’t do it then put on your white gloves and walk away. Howard Dean however will NEVER be forgiven for taking the votes away from Fla and Mich in order to make SURE Hillary would not win. Our OWN party stole the election and that will never change.
With that said I am very pleased that BO chose Hillary for SoS. My opinion of BO changed when he made this decision. He did NOT have to make that choice and for him to put all the bad feelings aside,
KNOWING that his own supporters were going to FREAK
shows incredible insight and grace on his part. I don’t buy into the paranoid bullshit that he is setting her up blah blah blah. He chose her because she is the best person for the job and I admire and respect him for that.
I believe they will make an incredible team and look forward to watching them work together. I refuse to hold on to the never ending grief of Hillary’s loss.
It is counter productive and does nothing but keep one mired in anger and pain. IF Hillary can move forward .. so can we. If not, you are making a decision to stay stuck in a non functioning position of rage and pity.
There was some other motivation for choosing Hillary, and I will not pretend to know what it was. Insight? Maybe some insight into his own cluelessness, but I doubt it. Grace? Laughable.
Laughable to you … not to me. Making Hillary SoS was nothing short of brilliant and I give credit where credit is due.
IndyRobin, I’m sure that you and I have been on the same side of a lot of issues, and I don’t want to appear hostile. When you speak of “the paranoid bullshit that he is setting her up,” yep, I suppose that expresses my fears. You think he chose her because she “is the best person for the job.” I agree that she is the best person for the job, but I really mistrust his motivations, and I fear for her future. I have a very negative opinion of O’s personality. All I can say is, we’ll see. I don’t mind being wrong, and in this case I hope you’re right and I’m wrong.
American politics are brutal, I used to think this sort of thing was kind of paranoid, too, but it really isn’t, in the end.
Sometimes I think our Congress is full of nothing but embittered, prissy little school girls, not even interested in governing the country as much as they are in playing social queen of the New York 500.
Very sad, and very very dysfunctional.
Meaning the joy is in discrediting Clinton, not helping her to help the US, and the world.
It’s a different world.
I’m afraid I share this cynical suspicion. Is O capable of finding joy in discrediting Clinton? Yes, I think he is, though perhaps “amusement” might be the more apt, godlike term.
Amen! That’s how I feel. Thanks for expressing it so well. I won’t trust the Ofraud if my life depends on it.
Thanks so much for sharing your thoughts. For me I can not and will not stay stuck looking around every single corner for some “alternative motive” without proof… ( i.e him choosing Hillary) As I said earlier I don’t believe that BO is eeevvilll. This attitude reminds me of how the Republicans hated Hillary with a passion and did everything they could to destroy her. I believe BO is nothing more than a politician, Hillary got screwed but moved on.Now that he IS POTUS ( unlike most here) I’m on board which will not make me a ‘popular” person I’m sure ..lol
Sabotaging Obama is to sabotage America.
OTOH, enabling a criminal incompetent president is to sabotage America, too.
Rezko, for starters, and the election represent tremendous baggage for both Obama, and the country.
I wish it weren’t, but it is, and to ignore those facts is to endanger the country, same as with Bush.
Because someone else is always paying attention.
What?
The words “insight and grace” don’t come to mind immediately upon thought of Obama?
I don’t know why…
LOL.
Lol … yes that word was bound to get a reaction. For fun, I looked it up
noun, verb, graced, grac⋅ing.
–noun 1. elegance or beauty of form, manner, motion, or action.
2. a pleasing or attractive quality or endowment.
3. favor or good will
4. moral strength: the grace to perform a duty.
His decison was indeed “an elegance of action”
This is really going to piss people off
No, I think, and I should have thought a little more before answering, (sorry,) but it’s my impression the joy is in discrediting one another, looking to discredit one another.
It’s simply the atmosphere of Washington, in some ways, like Erica Kaine, in earlier days of All My Children.
Erica Kaine ..rofl. Good Eye. BTW .. love “pieces of you” Lovely and poetic. Where does it come from if you don’t mind me asking,
And somehow, all of this, the song “traces” by the Classic IV, was reduced to “pieces of you,” in my mind.
NOT having to do with the song by Jewel, btw, I was thinking earlier today back to a time when I was about nine, this song included in a popular song book of sheet music my sister and I were learning, for piano. I remembered it as “pieces of you.”
These things just pop out of nowhere, sometimes, sorry.
Beautiful.
Definition numero uno for “grace” in the Merriam Websters Online Dictionary is as follows:
1 a: unmerited divine assistance given humans for their regeneration or sanctification b: a virtue coming from God c: a state of sanctification enjoyed through divine grace
And these connotations are the main reason I object to the use of the term. I am sick to death of implications that Obama has some kind of divine authority over us mortals, and that he knows best in his godly wisdom; that he is somehow bestowing the gift of SoS upon the unworthy Hillary as an unmerited act of divine grace from above. Enough.
That’s your choice or belief … I outlined mine. I’m a atheist so God don’t have shit to do with it
You study religion, too, dont you?
(Maybe that was someone else).
His decison was indeed “an elegance of action”
I read that as “Fear of Flying”
Interesting take. ‘Fear of Flying” … I would love to hear more of where this comes from if you choose.
IndyRobin…
.
Sounds like BO to me when “an elegance of action” is used to describe “the One”.
O-nut nut doesn’t have GRACE — there is nothing at all about this pile of crap called 0 that is anything near Grace.
You 0bots keeps seeing a great painting in a pile of shit.
NorthWest … I have been called many things in my life but never a “Obot” Lol
IF I remember correctly you were on TM where we all worked together FOR Hillary.
BO ‘won’ because the DNC knew people had no idea that they are a private club; that caucuses can easily be rigged; and that no provision of any state or federal law requires any government actor to check the candidate’s Constitutional eligibility. He ‘won’ because the gangsters and hoodlums who wanted him to win preyed on a naive complacent electorate. I assure you, I do not “hold on to the never ending grief of Hillary’s loss.” Rather, I proudly and humbly refuse to capitulate either to those who would destroy my Constitutional Republic; or to those who have acquiesced to such destruction. Nelson Mandela spent 26 years in prison first for participating in efforts to overthrow an illegal racist government and then for refusing to disavow the use of force to effect change. I ‘admire and respect him for that.’
AMEN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The man who smeared Hillary Clinton as a racist and a liar has “incredible insight and grace” [barf]?
What’s a more likely motivation for a man with Zero integrity:
Hillary is successful – which she will be – and Barack takes the credit.
When things heat up, Hillary is a ready-made target for negativity, directing it AWAY from Obama and his pathetic narcissism. Remember, the fraud Obama has used this right-wing generated perception before, as in the primary.
Barack is protecting HIMSELF and nothing more – covering his bamboozling azz.
I’m looking foward to vote for anyone who challenges him in in 2012.
IndyRobin — Obama counts on people like you who have no problem with how he cheated to get the nomination and encouraged his voters to vote multiple times in the General. I don’t care if Obama wanted God to serve in his cabinet. A cheat is a cheat and a liar is a liar. Don’t forget to buy your Obama coins and plates before the price goes up.
Too easy to put things in boxes. You are just another disgruntled Hillary supporting loser. Get over it. Obama represented a new face, a new generation and a much bigger change than either Hillary or McCain. Hillary had all the cards and she blew it. She ran a terrible campaign. It started with her not admitting she was wrong on the war and it was all downhill from there.
It was way more than the “left-wing” of the Democratic party that wanted to get out of Iraq and thought it was a bad idea. Obama was right on Iraq and Clinton was wrong, period full stop. People appreciated that.
“Social identity” needs? What is that suppose to mean? Sounds like a far flung theory of BS.
Obama became president because of George Bush. Well for sure that is part of it. But, the Republicans ran the most anti-George Bush candidate they could, so it was not necessary obvious. If Obama did not have a good platform and some talent he would not be where he is and had been the Democratic candidate.
Sure the election tightened up after the Republican convention and gimickry of Palin, but it always tightens after conventions. I doubt with or without the deepening economic crisis McCain would have won. Might have been closer, but the seeds for change were sow over many many years.
What are Clintonomics? Obama became a Clintonista? What a joke? Sure he appointed a lot of people that also worked in the Clinton Adminstration, but where else are you going to get experienced democrats. And so what? He is smart to do this and also appoint Hillary to a top position. I am not sure that Hillary would have done the same if she would have won.
Your arguements about some sort of Obama transformation are very weak. I am still not clear what you are trying to prove? He transformed from what to what exact? What a joke!
Not all president and political leaders come from a position of leadership. There are many different life experiences that can make good politians. History had proven this. Your buddy Hillary has absolutely zero experience as a leader and frankly McCain’s experience in the military was a joke. McCain’s experience as a leader are very limited as well. He had very little adminstrative expereience. Bush was the leader of Texas, but his leadership skills were absolutely terrible.
Obama’s so called positions on Iraq as you outlined make some logical sense. He thought it was a dumb idea to start with. However, once we were there an exit was going to be difficult and had to be done with some caution. Once Bush stirred up the hornets nest it was never going to be easy to withdraw. I see nothing in your seven points that is contradictory.
Fire away people….
puh-leese
just not worth the ammo
You don’t offer any concrete examples to back up your assertions, you simply express bland, specious generalities, in effect an attempt to discredit disguised as legitimate arguement.
(Problem is, you really may not know it.)
The same as my saying “Obama is qualifed to be president becuase he attended Harvard, ” or “Obama MUST be qualified because he was named editor of the Harvard law review.”
It’s nonsense, right, surely you see it, too, even beyond the obvious logical fallacy.
And that type of specious thought process is simply not capable of analyzing, much less understanding the problems and “range complexity of issues” facing the US — proving the author’s premise, I suppose.
Obama represented a new face … TRUE ‘represented”
is the operative word. He THEN turned around and renigged on almost every single platform he ran on LOL … how is that “change”. He did what he had to do, said what he had to say, to get elected period.
You’re right. Hillary had major campaign problems, less that half the money, very little support for her own party and she still won 18 million votes AND the popular vote.
She would have won by Feb 5th IF Howard Dean would not have fucked her over.
With that said I ( unlike most people here) am happy that BO is POTUS since he was always my second choice after Hilalry.
Hillary had ALL the money and ALL the support of democrats for over one year in 2007. she blew it. Obama ran a better campaign, did NOT cheat (this is so absurd – try getting more than a handful of hillary supporters to agree with this – you won’t)and he raised more money than she did because she BLEW it big time. obviously that is a very good example of someone who is NOT a very good leader….she had NO message until she started attacking obama when he started winning. she had NO leadership of her own campaign, spent all her money and had to fire her top people as they were always fighting – again because she was a HORRIBLE leader.
that’s the facts…would you like more proof??
LOL It still bugs you that BOBO barely squeaked a victory over Hillary doesn’t it? It sure is lucky for him that he ran a brilliant campaign. Or is he lucky she ran the worst campaign in history? LMAO. Ummmmm, yeah it must have been the combination of the two that made it possible for BOBO to barely squeak that victory over Hillary. Man for our sakes I sure hope the rest on the world individually run the worst counties in history so BOBO can look all brilliant for you again.
If “being wrong on the war” was her big mistake, why has Obama only hired people who voted the same way she did?
How in the world was Barack “right on Iraq.” He didn’t see the same information as Hillary, and of course could not make the vote. He said himself that he didn’t know what he would have done given the same intelligence.
Giving a speech not covered by the media and making a vote in the U.S. Senate with the intelligence you are given are two completely different measures.
This is the truly the stuff of “fairy tales.”
I agree that Obama was right on Iraq when he took position #4 (smart withdrawal). I think he was most wrong on the war in Iraq when he took position #2 (calling for a surge and saying withdrawal on timetables is an insult to the troops) and position #5 (withdrawal on timetables in 16 months).
The optimist in me says, good news! With the appointment of Hillary Clinton and the reappointment of SecDef Gates, we are most likely to get position #4.
One thing that I find of interest is that you haven’t noticed that Bush’s Secretary of Defense is being reappointed as SecDef. Doesn’t that cause you pause to ask, “Just what is Obama doing in reappointing one of the main strategists of the surge?”
I’ll have more on this in the second part.
One more thing: When you read Part 2, especially the section on Kool-Aid and SecDef Gates, remember Beener’s comment and know that I wrote Part 2 long before Beener made the comment. It is like I have psychic abilities or something.
Obama represented
ah yes the symbolism…I was wondering why I didn’t v o t e for that “Not all president and political leaders come from a position of leadership.”
What vexes you so Beener? Your cyclops is blind or that in your gut churns the W.O.R.M?
Obama’s so called positions on Iraq as you outlined make some logical sense … maybe to a sleeping bat.
Obama new face?
No he is just another mafia/chicago political slime machine crook.
He’s got an ugly face — because he soul is ugly.
As the article points out — Obama has a history of dumping the folks that helped him get where HE wanted to be. He has no loyalty — and he will not have any loyalty to you dumb 0bots.
Barry Soretoro is still a liar and a cheat — and he doesn’t meet the Constitutional requirements to BE da prez.
The SOB was never vetted.
You 0-butts are pathetic — besides being sexist pigs.
beener,joke? you are the joke! we don’t waste our time on jokes. we just laugh at them.
you fancy that we give a damx about your pathetic little post????? please!
beener — I guess it didn’t hurt Obama to have the entire media promoting him as a Messiah 24/7 and treating Hillary like trash. We now have 2 wars and a possible third. The economy is in free fall and we have a president who served as a State Senator and only 2 years in the Senate before running for the toughest job in the world. He ran as a liberal and now names as one of his confidants G. W. Bush as he take a hard right turn. We have no idea where he was born or the state of his health. There are so many scandals swirling about him it makes my head spin. But I know you think he’s the greatest thing since sliced bread. Frankly, I would have preferred a person with experience and knowledge of the issues who could speak without a teleprompter. But I guess I’m too picky.
Had Hillary won the primary (she actually won the primary popular vote, but because of the superdelegates, the debacle of Florida and Michigan – Rules & Bylaws Committee, and caucus fraud she did not prevail), Hillary would have offered the Vice Presidency to Obama. Hillary has been a very loyal Democrat and never wanted such divisions in the party, and she campaigned diligently on behalf of Obama to make sure he was elected President so that the Democratic Party would prevail. The incompetence of Bush is the sole reason a candidate with as little experience as Obama could have ever been elected. You are correct, Americans were frustrated by Bush, and in 2006 that is why Republicans lost control of Congress, and why a Republican was most likely never going to win the Presidency in 2008. Regarding a refusal to apologize for a vote: Hillary gave a speech immediately as to her concern about the Senate’s vote to give Bush new authority to go to war with Iraq, and Hillary warned Bush to use the authorization wisely, to let inspections in Iraq continue and to use full diplomacy before going to war, as she was concerned about other hot spots around the globe such as Pakistan, and did not want us to be overextended militarily and otherwise. Do you need me to provide the link to that speech? Bush did not use the authority wisely. Hillary should not have apologized for her vote, and her constituents would have been up in arms and revolted had she voted otherwise, as New Yorkers were emotionally concerned about the planes crashing in to the World Trade Center buildings, and as you will recall, the prolonged clean-up exasperated New Yorkers’ anxiety and attitude. It has been a long and painful 8 years. However, you need to understand that Obama is ambitious and he banked on the emotions of the country and campaigned accordingly, thus the many transformations and abrupt changes in position on all issues (the war in Iraq, FISA, gun control, closure of Gitmo, troop withdrawal timelines, Social Security and Medicare entitlements (WTF) etc.). He will continue to change as necessary to be popular, because he is immature, and is living out his historical fantasies, one day being Lincoln, the next day being JFK, the next day conjuring up MLK and Malcolm X, the next day Reagan and the Republican party of ideas, etc. One thing Obama can count on is playing to the desperation of the American public to end the nightmare of Dubya. I laughed at the irony of Obama as he plans a dinner to honor McCain and Colin Powell, each of “these distinguished Americans has spent his life in service to his country, at each and every moment placing the interests of America before issues of political party,” the night before his inauguration. You gotta love it! I suspect we will see many transformations and policy reversals as Obama tries to stay popular and beloved by all, as Obama is most concerned about his ambition, his legacy to be as popular as Lincoln, JFK and Reagan, and to be elected to a second term. To that extent is all we can expect, and of course, change from Dubya is accomplished on day one, Obama’s inauguration. Oh come let us, the desperate for change, adore Him, and yes he is playing on transformations and reversals as needed to appeal to the wide public, to keep them in his corner, so they will blindly give him the benefit of the doubt, until he doesn’t need them and they are under the bus. The story of an ambitious man who really doesn’t give a shit about issues… I believe that most of the Clintonistas care about the issues, thankfully, and hopefully they will be around long enough to effectively reverse course on the train wreck that has been Dubya. Obama’s utterly bogus and heinous adventure. It will be somewhat tricky for Obama because he took so much money from so many who expect something in return; and that is what makes him the most typical Washington/Chicago politician.
Many other posters have reminded us of the role of the media in the success of the Obama campaign, inappropriate as it was/is. But don’t you just love this?? Obama had dinner with George Will, and at least two other prominent conservative pundits Tuesday night, David Brooks and Bill Kristol, and none other than Rush Limbaugh. I don’t know why Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity didn’t join them. I wonder when the liberal media will have dinner with Obama?
As an engineer, I must say that I await the next installment as I used to wait for the next primary or, before that, the next episode of The Sopranos. Every time I think I’m out, they pull me back in!
Where does his money come from and what are their beliefs? That answers most questions for me, quite frankly.
Although famous for pitching people who are no longer useful (Alice Palmer, anyone or Rev. Wright?), Obama probably does not pitch money people. Well, not unless bigger money comes in. Rezko just isn’t that useful when Soros is on board.
BO’s political gift is to make people feel better about themselves for having supported him. He has no other accomplishments to really speak of. But people do feel better about themselves. So, the money guys (and they ARE mainly guys) saw that and said “He’s going to get lots of people to vote for him – he’s MY guy. Just let me write a check and we’ll talk about that energy policy/real estate/defense contract, etc. later.
I seriously doubt much in the way of policy, etc. made much of an impact. That’s why no position was held – it didn’t matter in the least and most (little) people wouldn’t even keep score.
Those who do matter are patient and don’t need to keep score. They have people who do that sort of thing.
Looks like Beener & Indyrobin come armed with the new message from The Bureau.
They can never just state their case -they try & convert.
Boring.Boring.Boring
WTF?? Lol you can NOT be serious. Message’s from “The Bureau” … Larry , Susan, I’m now a SPY !!!
HERE IS THE VIDEO I MADE FOR HILLARY DURING THE ELECTION. What did you do?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcdnlNZg2iM
Very impressive video, IndyRobin. I appreciate you providing the link. We do share common ground.
Thanks … Not trying to “convert” anyone. There are those who make choices to spend their time, enegry, and emotion tangeled up in the past using this election to act out their rage and frustration. Hillary has MOVED on and so have I.
Good for you IndyRobin…do you want a medal for your great accomplishment.
Obama was a fraud and a LIAR and he still is!!!
George W. Bush was also a fraud and a liar; if the people had held him accountable we may not now be in the MESS that we are in….so IR please enjoy your self-acclaimed sense of superiority.
There are some of us who do not share your new found FAITH in President Elect BH “The Great Deceiver” Obama and I for one intend to hold his feet to the fire (in what ever humble way I can) for the next four years.
I feel positive and empowered by that goal…to hold BHO accountable and I will encourage everyone I know to demand some honesty and itegrity from our government.
In her role as SOS, I believe that Hillary Clonton will do the same!!
I disagree with the characterization that Obama represented the far left of the Democratic Party. I always felt that Obama was a fake leftist and was really a centrist in disguise taking after Bill Clinton. Obama talked a lot about the somewhat left of center social issues during his campaign while all but ignoring the real economic issues faced by the embattled American middle class.
Hillary Clinton, however, made the issues facing the middle class the cornerstone of her campaign, and this in my opinion, made her a more progressive candidate than Obama, even more so than Bill Clinton ever was. Obama’s bringing back people from the old Clinton administration does not show that he’s moving toward Hillary’s positions, but more toward Bill’s, or what were Bill Clinton’s positions during his administration.
This is why it is a shrewd political move for Obama to make Hillary Secretary of State as it removes her from having any influence on domestic economic policy which she would have had if she had stayed in the Senate or had taken any other cabinet position. Hillary would have been a strong voice for the middle class against the corporate interests. So far, Obama’s economic advisers seem to feel that the way out of our current economic mess is to continue feeding the corporate beast. Is the middle class going to be forgotten again?
It’s probably time we redefine our notions of what is conservative and liberal as the old labels don’t seem to work anymore.
So far, I don’t believe Obama has any firm principles. I strongly believe he is an opportunist. I think he will continue throwing some crumbs left, right, center, everywhere, to keep everyone “hoping” – so that he gets reelected. So, it may be true that labels needs to be redefined, but I’m not sure he would fit into any of them. I really don’t believe he has firm beliefs (which a good leader needs).
Yep!
double YEP!
Obama is an opportunist with NO real core values.
He is a USER AND A TAKER.
lorac — yes
Gotta disagree on this a bit. I don’t think Obama represented ANY definable position, left or center. I think he will construct whatever positions he eventually takes – on the fly.
Just because he may not fulfill leftish dreams does not mean he’s a centrist. It only means he wasn’t all that left. What he actually IS is still a mystery. We don’t actually know why he picked the people for certain positions.
I always felt that Obama was a fake leftist and was really a centrist in disguise taking after Bill Clinton.
Marc, I always believe this as well. The really SAD part is that BO hooked the youth movement into this far left ideology and has abandoned every promises he ran on. The end result will be millions of disillusioned youth LEAVING the democratic party in the future which will hurt us all
Obama’s a ‘fake’ everything, that’s why he’s all over the map on the left, in the center, blah, blah blah. He’s what anyone wants him to be in order to further his narcissisitic goals. He doesn’t smile unless it’s that broad on cue fake smile that he says he used to flash for his mother when she visited him in Hawaii to hide all his drug use and mediocre grades. This guy’s 8 years old being dropped off at his grandparent’s house by a mother who needed to pursue her own agenda. As the Newsweek editor said he’s “creepy as he watches us watching him.” Americans have no idea what they’re in for.
GREAT essay–I can barely wait until Part II.
Good article. I look forward to part two!
I suspect Obama just wanted to win the presidency. He probably wanted the prestige and the photo ops. When he won and found out he was expected to, like lead, and like work, he decided he better scramble to get some people who knew what they were doing. I think he just wants to spend his time presidenting.
On the choice of HRC, I wrote this as soon as it was mentioned and I write it again. Anyone who has dissected BHO’s rise to power should not find this move surprising at all. However, to attribute it to a benevolent heart is simply naive.
BHO does not much care what his core supporters do. Where are they going? They’re on the left, is there a left to the left of the left with a chance to win a seat anywhere in American politics? What BHO does is what is good for BHO POLITICALLY and for no other reason. He’s proved this so many times it’s laughable to continue to revisit the question.
What did he do with the appointment of HRC (and her decision to accept the appointment, which was no certain thing)? He removed the only viable threat to him from within the (formerly) Democratic party. Her 19 million became (unless the PUMA can continue to swim upstream against the increasingly torrential current in the BHO direction) his 19 million. He co-opted her, marginalized the only potential threat in sight over which he had any control. Whatever you want to call it.
I applauded it, as a POLITICAL maneuver. Cold and calculated. It was, in that sense, brilliant.
But warm-hearted and well-intentioned? Hardly.
Do you think it was his choice?
Thank you, Sam Copeland, and welcome.
Excellent post. Your words make me so proud to have been, and still be, an avid Bill/Hill admirer.
I think that he takes his cue from Abraham Lincoln is the clue. Abraham Lincoln was not a progressive. He did not want to end slavery at all and didn’t believe African Americans were truly equal, just that they were also human. Abraham Lincoln primary purpose was to save the union. If that could have been accomplished with keeping slavery, then that is what he would have done. It was the progressive radicals that pushed Abraham Lincoln. Obama will snuggle in the position that will be the most comfortable for him. It is up to everyone else to push him to be a true progressive versus that faux corporate progressive we have now. In other words, it is Obama who is comfortable in being a republican light. We need to make him uncomfortable with that.
As LBJ once said to the civil rights leaders…Make me do the right thing.
Linda C, I’ve seen lots of different explanations of O’s psychological profile, and I’ve come up with a few myself, but this “snuggle bunny” theory is new to me. Is he really Snuggle Bunny rather than Crusader Rabbit? They’ll be rather disappointed over at Daily Kos.
At DKos they will be disappointed (or outraged) if the Pope does not declare Obama to be a Saint.
According to Doris Kerns Goodwin, Lincoln came to understand the union could not be saved unless slavery was abandoned.
He was brilliant, a master of American political theory.
I’m a pessimist. Hillary should be in charge.
SHE is …lol
Obama’s competence lies largely in his ability for self-advancement. The question is for what end? Only he and perhaps Michelle know ultimately.
History unfortunately shows that a leader can operate at least on 2 levels, if not several quite successfully, displaying only that which is most desirable to the public. Could I mention Hitler without everyone becoming hysterical? I’m sure there are many more examples.
I for one am not assuming anything from the “cover” he presents to the world.
This is great post. I think the Dean/Pelosi wing of the Party was mesmerized about Obama’s race. Now, I definitely was excited early on about an African American and a woman candidate, but I am really a bread and butter issues voter. The identity politics part was so intoxicating for the power brokers and elitists that using sexism and race-baiting was deemed acceptable.
I liked what Ani said:
Absolutely … partly due to America’s need to exercise the race demon hung around her neck. The irony being they then played the race card to further their agenda of believing they were ” eradicating racism” … too freakin funny.
That is rather like the Vietnam-era claim that “We had to destroy the village in order to save it”.
Forgive me if I think any talk of Obama’s “second term” as a little hilarious. His term will be fraught with danger. All that info that was ignored all year will come flying back into focus the moment he dips below 50% for 2 months. And under duress Obama becomes snotty and aloof…and is prone to throwing the bird.
I would not bet on a second term. The man is NOT teflon like Reagan, or as skilled as Clinton, he is PROTECTED. There is a difference. Obama is good with the big speech. The rest has been done for him. If he does not deliver within in a year or so he is in big trouble.
John – I believe the Republicans allowed Obama to win because they wanted to sit this one out, however, they are in possession of alot of material which could hurt Obama and they will release it when the time is right. Obama made promises to the Muslims that it was their turn in the Sun and they will test him. As a protege of the Big Business crowd Obama wants to take down the Social Safety Net. However, this is a tough sell to a country that is in a world of pain and to families who are caught between the needs of their parents and their children.
If Obama’s economic plan is thought to favor big business while ignoring the needs of the people it will be a very short Honeymoon and if he favors the needs of the people Big Business will pull the rug out from underneath him.
As an amateur Obama will undoubtedly trust the media to carry his water and at some appropriate time the media will do what they do best turn on those they once praised.
Its hard enough for a principled man to succeed in the Presidency — for an unprincipled one — you bet its fraught with danger.
oh i think the media is already turning on obama.
Good point about how he acts under stress. And the stress will only increase. And yeah, his approval rate doesn’t have very far to go to dip below 50, and he NEEDS those public accolades to prop up his self-esteem.
Sam, whoever you are, you’ve got it all wrong.
Where did Obama’s money really come from? That is the key to everything. Way to the right of the Clintons. Wall Street, insurance companies, etc. The Clintons do not represent the center as much as they represent the public good. Obama is bought and paid for, they are not.
Reid, Pelosi, Dean are not lefties. They are to the right as well. Just folks who want to keep their comfortable jobs without rocking the boat.
The lactual efties are fools and always have been. They were conned.
the only interesting thing about this is the fact the left is being sent to the bus barn. enjoy the view!
Sam Copland, excellent piece with a great delivery.
Instead of pessimist, optimist or engineer can I be the glass maker?
You bet TeakwoodKite!
We are all going to need to be glass makers and reframe the political discussion away from a neo-con versus leftists discussion to one that includes All-American Liberalism.
I am really confused by this post.
This blog stridently supported McCain and Sarah Palin during the election. But now you’re questioning Obama’s liberal bona fide and advocating he isn’t far enough to the Left?
People, there will be plenty of opportunities over the next 8 years to vent your hatred of Obama. No need to twist yourselves into pretzels inventing phony outrage.
Oy.
The former President, who Obama’s wife once called a racist.
Really Sam? I must have missed that episode. Please cite the quote from Michelle calling Bill Clinton a racist.
You don’t just throw stuff like that out there w/o proof. So prove it!
12th paragraph
Shhhhhhhhh! Keep it down, the rest of us are trying to have an adult conversation. Children are to be seen and not heard.
You can mock me if you want, S-bitch. But stating as fact that MO called Bill Clinton a racist is incitement, no?
Look, I understand blogs are not held to the same journalistic standards as real media. But if you want people to take NQ seriously, its authors have a responsibility to fact check.
Larry and Susan (I think) are trying to pivot away from the campaign to serious discourse on substantive issues. LJ’s articles the past couple of weeks on Gaza have been outstanding. Ditto Susan and Pat.
But the author, Sam, made a specific reference to MO calling WJC a racist. He/she didn’t state it as an opinion but rather as fact. So I’m calling him/her out. Prove it or retract it. Journalism 101.
MO and her horrid behavior have been discussed here at NQ to the point of violent stomach retchings. I’m sure if you’re interested you could search the site for MO postings. Frankly, as far as I’m concerned, after she said she wanted to scratch Bill’s eyes out, she should have been punched in her oversized gob.
Johnny:
The incident that I was referring to happened around the SC primary. Bill Clinton rightly referred to Obama’s position on the war as a fairy-tale.
Michelle Obama mis-characterized that comment to state that Clinton called Obama himself a “fairytale,” as well as his message of hope and redemption for disenfranchised minorities.
The Obama campaign at the time produced a memo that contained 5 talking points to make the Clintons look like racists. The Michelle Obama comments were part of this campaign.
Bill Clinton responded to these attacks by going on GMA and saying: “But I am not a racist, I never made a racist comment, and I didn’t attack him [Obama] personally.”
From a political strategy standpoint, Obama needed to do this to (a) separate the African-American vote from Hillary Clinton (Bill Clinton won their support overwhelmingly) and (b) to divert attention away from his record on the war (Obama as I noted took 7 different positions on the war and had taken 5 different positions at the time these remarks were made).
I am surprised that you do not recall these incidents. From a political strategy point-of-view, this was a major turning point in the campaign.
Sean Wilentz has an excellent review of Obama’s use of the race card at:
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304
And let me take this chance to highly recommend my favorite historian — Sean Wilentz — and his two books “Age of Reagan” (quite simply the best history of our modern political times) and “The Rise of American Democracy” (an outstanding history of early America). If you aren’t reading NQ, let me suggest you read Wilentz.
Sean Wilentz is a Hillary lover from day one and took mighty glee in trashing Obama every minute he could…it was nauseating after the fifth article. Hardly an open-minded person as regards the primaries.
your guy won, but you can’t seem to accept that.
What Ellen can’t accept is that Hillary doesn’t need her acceptance. She will be SoS, and a great one perhaps the best ever, and when the congress votes to confirm her nomination, she will be forever be out of Ellen’s reach. She will be vindicated and just maybe all the Clinton protagonists will eat s@##t and die.
But that doesn’t change the facts about Michelle Obama and her statements nor about the Obama campaign memo on talking points racism. You can google and find other sources for this.
Ellen — I treated Johnny’s question in a sincere manner and with respect. I answered it with honest facts.
An honest and respectful reply would be to accept the facts and not try to discredit them by attacking an excellent historian.
Well, it’s nice to know I now have a place to hang my hat: the All American Liberal Wing.
This primary and election season left me wandering in the desert.
Right now, I’m a guarded optimist. I’m really glad HRS will be in the SOS spot. This afternoon’s hearings only confirmed that for me. She was poised, clear and confident. In fact, I thought her oprning was downright brilliant. I do regret [and on my worst days resent] what happened during the primary. But next week Obama will be POTUS. And we better hope for all our sake’s that he doesn’t blow it. I don’t think he was the man for the job, but he’s got the job nonetheless.
We’re facing serious, serious problems here and around the world. Thank God, Obama has put good people around him. Whether it’s a screen or cover
We’ll see how it goes. A few prayers probably wouldn’t hurt either!
I get so sick of hearing “Hillary ran a lousy campaign”, “Obama ran a brilliant campaign”. News Flash: The Corporate Media ran this election from start to finish, and they were the only “winners”. They proved once again, they can elect whoever they choose.
Sorry, that should read “They proved once again they can INSTALL whoever they choose”.
There are certainly lessons to be learned for the future of the Democratic party, but I think you are finding the wrong ones. What many Clinton supporters didn’t appreciate about Obama was that his campaign did not appeal just to the far left or just to the center left. He consistently sold himself as the pragmatic left — sometimes more progressive, sometimes more cautious. This let him break out of the traditional liberal/conservative dichotomy, in a way that a lot of people liked. Others, however, weren’t sure what to make of it, and thought he was either a radical socialist or a closet neo-con.
Also, please stop saying that Hillary “won the popular vote.” For one thing, it’s incredibly dishonest. You need to accept some bizarre counting methods for Clinton to get more votes. (http://public.sheet.zoho.com/publish.do?docurl=4TSEWu%2F2PATXMIqoemA4Wg%3D%3D&name=UtHZ%2BH6h%2FZV%2BCZZhAL54dQ%3D%3D; http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html) For another, it’s irrelevant – the nomination is determined by delegates, and the fact that Mark Penn didn’t understand how delegates were selected doesn’t mean it’s an unfair process. Saying she should have won based on votes is like a football team saying “we got more yards, so we should win.”
The lesson the Democratic Party should learn is that the caucus process needs to be discontinued, and in the case of the Obama campaign, this corrupt process in which people were intimidated and excluded allowed Obama to game the system and cheat, and it is not democratic. The caucus system is awful, with aggressive and hostile bullying the norm. The Democratic Party should hold only primaries in each state, and allow voters the opportunity to vote at a polling booth at a time that is convenient for everyone. Each state’s delegates should be nominated and selected separately of from the primary voting, thereby you get only persons who want to be delegates versus a bunch of people who have absolutely no interest in competing to be a delegate, and delegates should be mandated by the state party based on the result of the primary vote results only, otherwise it becomes a corrupt venture. Obama supporters never want to admit that Hillary received more democratic votes, of one vote for one person, instead of ridiculous formulas of delegates awarded with no rhyme or reason or logical basis. I will be happy to provide precise examples. Hillary won more popular votes, the fair, honest and democratic way. I hope that delegates will never again be the basis for determining who wins a primary, and for god sakes let’s never have super delegates who are bought with different pac monies, and never again disenfranchise a single voter from this day forward.
“He consistently sold himself as the pragmatic left — sometimes more progressive, sometimes more cautious”
Yes, but always saying and doing and PROMISING anything necessary to get elected. Just one example: he lied about closing Gitmo in his first 100 days. Say anything, do anything, promise anything to get elected. That is Obama’s “pragmatism”.
Great post, but I have to disagree with one point here:
“Now, a funny thing happen to Barack Obama on the way to his inauguration. He became a Clintonista! During the primaries, he ridiculed the economic policies of Bill Clinton. By the end of the general election, he was claiming to bear the mantle of Clinton-nomics. Once elected, he appointed Clintonista after Clintonista to high government office, including the top Clintonista to the top spot – Senator Clinton to be the Secretary of State.”
I just don’t think Hillary is the top “Clintonista”. The irony is that she is in reality much less “Clintonian” than Obama, and this probably would have been reflected in her appointments. Since she has a much better grasp of policy, she would have had less need to surround herself with retreads from her husband’s administration, and may have risked promoting some fresh faces. And unlike “Post Partisan Obama”, I don’t think she buys into the need to always defer to the Village’s abhorance of partisan bickering at the cost of compromising liberal principles.
It gives me a little comfort to feel that Bill and Hillary will be running things behind the scenes. Americans have become so stupid, they believe all the garbage being fed to them by the media, including anything Barack Obama says. From Day One, I knew Mr. O. was a con artist, manipulator and liar, so cannot believe anything he says or has said. He has proven he is a liar over and over. While I am happy to know he is really more of a centrist, he should not be our president. If he had come forth as an honest candidate (including telling us of his Muslim background and schooling in Indonesia where he learned Islam) and let the American people decide honestly if they wanted him, I would respect him more. If he hadn’t cried RACISM every second and guilted people into voting for him, I would find him a more honest candidate. He called himself a “different kind of politician”, but he is exactly the same kind as Rod Blagojevich and he has lied lied lied about his ties to Tony Rezko, the convicted felon in Illinois.
Also, his continual lies about birth, citizenship, eligibility to be POTUS under our Constitution continue to follow Obama around. Since he has conveniently sealed all his records, Hawaii, Law School, college, applications, etc., I feel he is definitely hiding something from the American people. But never fear, if it is all somehow exposed, he will give one of his speeches explaining why he chose to lie and cover up (isn’t he THE CHOSEN ONE) and then the laws will be changed on the spot retroactively to insure he is suddenly made legitimate. The emperor wearing no clothes will suddenly wear a bright new suit!!!
Sorry, but I am totally uninmpressed and underwhelmed by this guy, and nothing I have seen so far has changed my mind. If he didn’t know what he was doing, he should not have run for president and took it away from Hillary, who actually WON the popular Democratic vote. Hillary takes center stage whereever she goes. Condoleeza as Sec. of State was a non-entity, but Hillary immediately becomes the star of the show and will continue to be the bright light in the new administration.
[...] strategy. Read Sam Copeland’s well-received articles last week, in Parts I and II: “Obama and the American Lefts: Part I” and “Obama and the American Lefts: Part [...]