The Los Angeles Times in a short piece by Andrew Malcolm, says it all in the headline,”Obama Recruits An Army Of Community Organizers To Carry His ‘Movement Forward For Years To Come.”

Holy crappy doo.

You may recall that during the 2008 Election campaign, Obama had his “Obama For America” thugs, er, troops. Once he successfully stole the nomination from Clinton, it became rebranded as “Organizing for America.” You know, the one that “thoughtfully” provided a (used) slogan for a memorial service in Tucson after Jared Loughner opened fire, “Together We Thrive.” (Photo from LA Times article.)

Hard to believe it can get worse than that headline, but it does (depending upon your perspective, that is):

[snip] Strengthening “our democracy” presumably has something to do with reelecting the revered leader in 2012.

However, the Organizing for America recruiting message says nothing about politics or election campaigns and strangely talks in military terms of “a grassroots program that aims to put boots on the ground and help foster a new generation of leaders — not just to help win elections but to strengthen our democracy in communities across the country.”

The same Obama campaign group was reported involved in fomenting and facilitating the ongoing Wisconsin protests against Gov. Scott Walker’s budget plans.

The message about what it calls the “Summer Organizing Fellowship” adds: “Effective organizing doesn’t happen in a vacuum. It takes commitment, time, and hard work to build a movement around a cause.” It does not specify what the “cause” is, other than promoting Obama and his agenda.[snip]

Again I say, holy crappydoo.

Is this scaring the shit out of anyone else but me?

Well, if that part above didn’t, maybe this will:

[snip] The cadres “will be assigned to a specific community,” the message informs, “where they’ll work to organize supporters street by street, neighborhood by neighborhood.”

Hey, friends – I will be out of town starting 2/26 – 3/6, and unable to check in here. As always, I recommend visits to No Quarter, Uppity Woman’s blog, Stray Yellar Dawg’s site, and Logistics Monster’s site, to name a few. There are links to each one in the Blogroll. I hope you all have an excellent week. I know I am planning on doing the same!

Their job will involve recruiting additional Obama workers, running Obama-related events, knocking on doors to talk of Obama “and lay new groundwork to carry this movement forward for years to come.”

“In the end,” the Obama campaign appeal says of the community organizer corps, “their work will take our grassroots power to an impressive new level.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

How about now? Recruiting members, knocking on doors, all to spread the Good Word Of Obama, and implement his will for “years to come”?

And just what does it mean to “take our grassroots power to an impressive new level“? I don’t think I want to know.

How about you, what do you think?

In the aftermath of the shooting of 19 people in an attempted assassination of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., Countdown’s Keith Olbermann reminds Americans that “violence, or the threat of violence, has no place in our democracy.”

This is the man who wanted “a super delegate to take Hillary into a room and only he comes out.”

As Rev. Amy, Larry Johnson and Bronwyn’s Harbor have all noted, the current media feeding frenzy has little to do with a realistic dissection of events. Mr. Olbermann also ignores the years of violent rhetoric and spin that have been aimed at women and the devastating effect that has on all of us as a society. His outrage on behalf of a woman, namely Congresswoman Giffords, is only present because he can demonize another woman in the process, namely Sarah Palin.

While I am sensitive to violent rhetoric, having seen first hand how verbal abuse of women can lead to physical violence, before Mr. Olbermann aims more vitriol at his current favorite bogeymen, Palin and the Tea Party movement, he must first absolve himself of his own sins. He cannot do so. Surely many others of his ilk cannot either. Taking a senseless tragedy such as Saturday’s horrific shootings in Tucson and using it to obliquely further the ends of one political party over another is abhorrent.

As Howard Kurtz of The Daily Beast noted, the rhetoric of violence is regularly part of our political and “journalistic” discourse: having someone in the “crosshairs,” “targeting” a vulnerable incumbent, “lock and load,” President Obama making comments such as “if they bring a knife, we’ll bring a gun,” referring to his political opponents as “enemies”…This is nothing new. And as for Palin’s map of targeted districts in the 2010 midterms, it was a map she co-opted from democrats, who used the same technique years earlier. Politico just offered an article whereby a Democratic operative admitted to a concerted effort to blame the Tea Party for Saturday’s shootings. Even Mr. Kurtz admitted it was a ridiculous stretch to lay these horrible events at Palin’s doorstep.

Passion, protest or violence is not the province of any one group or party.

In 2008, Governor Palin was hung in effigy in my city and the mayor refused to have it taken down, defending the action by saying it was on private property even though the life-sized model hanging by a noose was clearly visible from the street. The Secret Service had to get involved in order to put an end to it. There were realistic images of Palin being tackled by a 280 lb. linebacker, other violent images featured Palin’s teeth getting knocked out. She was threatened by Sandra Bernhardt with gang rape if she dared step foot into Manhattan. The list goes on.

And what of Hillary Clinton? I remember seeing a blog post on a lefty website that called for “slitting her throat, throwing her into the trunk of a car, and dumping her body in the river.” Professor Kathleen Jamieson reported in her 2007 interview with Bill Moyers of PBS that Facebook sites with enormous followings depicted Hillary being violated by animals. She was accused of everything from the “murder of “Vince Foster” to wishing assassination upon Barack Obama. She, like Palin, was called every filthy name imaginable. Her supporters were as well. The tactic of insulting, physically threatening and calling innocent campaigners racist would seem to have “no place in our democracy” either.

Where was Mr. Olbermann’s outrage at the rhetoric of violence then? Since most of the vile behavior and commentary was coming from the Left – and even Olbermann himself – it is easy to understand why he remained silent.

I, too, believe that violent rhetoric is troubling and has no place in our discourse. But can it not be argued that the misogyny exhibited toward women day in and year out creates an atmosphere whereby a whacko like J. Loughner can go on a shooting spree – targeting a woman for assassination? Perhaps that seem like a stretch. But how is that any more of stretch than Democratic operatives looking to pin this tragedy on tea party members – although all evidence says that this disturbed loner was a Marxist. This young man had nothing to do with any group it seems, and for the media to jump to dangerous conclusions using half-baked information can only create the very atmosphere of violence they pretend they are wishing to assuage.

Both parties, along with the media, use irresponsible verbiage. It is sensationalistic, designed to sell copy and has been going on for years. According to an exclusive interview in Mother Jones today, the shooter had an obsession with Rep. Giffords and was possessed of his own violent fantasies and agenda. How was he following any one person’s political rhetoric in coming to the decision to do what he did? Further, while he may have targeted Rep. Giffords, he came loaded with several magazines for his semi-automatic weapon, clearly ready to execute as many people as he could, perhaps going out in a blaze of glory.

It would behoove the media to instead focus on an atmosphere that allowed a mentally unstable man to wander through life without proper medical attention while being given legal access to a semi-automatic weapon and ammunition.

The atmosphere of hate that Olbermann decries should upset him – he is one of the people who created it. It is disgraceful for any members of the fourth estate to sensationalize such a horrific event or worse, to use Ms. Gifford as a political football in order to ensnare and defeat others with whom they do not agree.

This is perfect Sunday fare, and rich coming from someone who routinely appeared with Keith Olbermann on Countdown (until they broke up back in August last year). That would be Dana Milbank. Oh, yes, this is priceless:

Obama The Mortal

Some parishioners in the Church of Obama discovered last week that their spiritual leader is a false prophet.

Consider the blow suffered by the liberal filmmaker Michael Moore, who issued a plaintive plea to the president on the eve of his announcement that he was sending 30,000 more troops into Afghanistan. By escalating the war, Moore wrote:

“[Y]ou will do the worst possible thing you could do — destroy the hopes and dreams so many millions have placed in you. With just one speech tomorrow night you will turn a multitude of young people who were the backbone of your campaign into disillusioned cynics. You will teach them what they’ve always heard is true — that all politicians are alike.”

Obama, of course, was not moved by his follower from Flint. The real question is why Moore, and those millions and multitudes of whom he wrote, thought that Obama would do otherwise. Obama never said during the campaign that he would pull out of Afghanistan; in fact, he had promised to escalate. “As president, I will make the fight against al-Qaeda and the Taliban the top priority that it should be,” he said in July 2008, vowing to send at least two more combat brigades to Afghanistan. “This is a war that we have to win.”

Yet Moore is surely right about the disillusionment of Obama’s supporters. Even before the surge announcement, support among liberals for Obama’s Afghanistan policy had dropped 22 points since July, to 59 percent from 81 percent, according to a Post-ABC News poll. Overall liberal support for Obama had drifted down to 80 percent from 94 percent in the spring — and, given the noisy complaints from the left last week, that number seems likely to fall further.

I wonder what Moore thinks now that Obama didn’t pay any attention to him? Not sure why he ever thought Obama would, but there you have it. As Milbank points out:

It was bound to happen eventually. Obama had become to his youthful supporters a vessel for all of their liberal hopes. They saw him as a transformational figure who would end war, save the Earth from global warming, restore the economy — and still be home for dinner. They lashed out at anybody who dared to suggest that Obama was just another politician, subject to calculation, expediency and vanity like all the rest.

Certainly, Obama gets some blame for encouraging the messianic cult as he stumped for change and hope. “I am asking you to stop settling for what the cynics say we have to accept,” he would say as he wrapped up speeches. “Let us reach for what we know is possible: A nation healed. A world repaired. An America that believes again.”

Uh, you think? Encouraging it?? That is exactly what Axelrove and Plouffe wanted – to craft Obama as the next coming (remember the whole “the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal” crap?), and Obama was all too willing to go along. That isn’t exactly a newsflash, at least to us in the reality based community. We were aware of what the Obama camp was doing, and why. No doubt, it was so people wouldn’t pay attention to this:

In other cases, Obama truly has gone back on campaign vows. Even some of his advisers are disappointed that he has moved so slowly to close the Guantanamo Bay prison. Civil libertarians are justifiably disappointed with his decision to continue much of the Bush administration secrecy. Clean-government types are understandably frustrated that Obama vowed that lobbyists “will not get a job in my White House” but now grants waivers so that lobbyists can work in key administration jobs.

But at least as much blame for the disillusionment goes to progressives who simply expected too much of him. Some are disappointed that the Nobel Peace Prize winner proposed even higher defense spending than George W. Bush did — but Obama never said he would cut the Pentagon’s budget. Many liberals are disappointed that he isn’t pushing the “public option” more forcefully in the health-care debate — but it was never something Obama emphasized during the campaign.

For all of Obama’s soaring oratory about hope and change, it was plain even during the campaign that his record was that of an incrementalist. His signature legislation — health care in the Illinois Senate and ethics in the U.S. Senate — were evolutionary improvements, not revolutionary overhauls. His Afghanistan policy, likewise, is above all a pragmatic, nonideological strategy. He stayed true to his campaign promise to take the fight to the Taliban, but he also tried to build a consensus.

His record? Just which record would that have been exactly? The one in which Emil Jones slapped Obama’s name on legislation for which he had done exactly NOTHING? And what did he do in the US Senate besides blow off promises made on the campaign finance reform committee, or fail to hold any meetings for the committee for which he was chair (that pesky boring one that just dealt with stuff like Afghanistan)? Is that the new definition of “incrementalist”? Sure, whatever you say, Dana.

Back to Afghanistan:

You’d think his supporters might applaud this sort of thoughtful, methodical leadership as a repudiation of the Bush style of government by political theory. Instead, they’re using words such as “O’Bomber” to describe the president. MoveOn.org launched a petition drive against the policy. Code Pink, the group that heckled Bush officials for years, heckled Obama advisers on Capitol Hill last week. The liberal Web publisher Arianna Huffington told Charlie Rose that the policy “puts into question his whole leadership.”

This is what happens when true believers mistake a mortal for a messiah. (danamilbank@washpost.com )

“Thoughtful”? “Methodical” Oh, right – that is “Upside down world” speak for “hemming and hawing”, “dithering,” and “dragging one’s feet.” Got it.

And Dana, you and a lot of the rest of the MSM were hyping Obama as a messiah, too, so make sure you shine that spotlight on yourself and your colleagues, while you are at it. Obama couldn’t have gotten his “message” across all over this land without the sycophantic collusion of the media. Just sayin’.

We all knew this was going to happen. At some point, Obama’s most devoted followers were going to start letting the reality pierce their veil of “Hope, Change, And Unicorns for Everyone!” It would have been BETTER had this happened 18 months ago before this charlatan got into the White House, aided and abetted by some of the very folks Millbank mentions above, as well as the media.

Okay – can I finally say this? I told you so. We told you so. Time to get up off your knees, shake the Kool Aide dust out of your head, and realize you have been had, on the 7th level with Tom Cruise kind of being had by some self-proclaimed messiah.

We welcome you to the Reality Based World. And with this being Sunday and all, I reckon we can say our prayers are starting to be answered. Halle-damn-lujah.

If this isn’t indoctrination, I don’t know what is:

Here are the words, in case you can’t understand them:

Barack Hussein Obama
He said that all must lend a hand [?]
To make this country strong again
Mmm, mmm, mm!

Barack Hussein Obama
He said we must be clear today
Equal work means equal pay
Mmm, mmm, mm!

Barack Hussein Obama
He said that we must take a stand
To make sure everyone gets a chance
Mmm, mmm, mm!

Barack Hussein Obama
He said Red, Yellow, Black or White
All are equal in his sight
Mmm, mmm, mm!

Barack Hussein Obama
Yes
Mmm, mmm, mm!

Barack Hussein Obama

Second Song:

Hello, Mr. President we honor you today!
For all your great accomplishments, we all [do? doth??] say “hooray!”
Hooray Mr. President! You’re number one!
The first Black American to lead this great na-TION!
Hooray, Mr. President something-something-some
A-something-something-something-some economy is number one again!
Hooray Mr. President, we’re really proud of you!
And the same for all Americans [in?] the great Red White and Blue!
So something Mr. President we all just something-some,
So here’s a hearty hip-hooray a-something-something-some!
Hip, hip hooray! (3x)

HOLY SHIT. Can you believe this? Just insert “George Walker Bush” in there instead of “Barack Hussein Obama” to get a full sense of how disturbing this is. Hell, insert any president’s name, it doesn’t matter. I imagine most parents would object to their children, their SMALL children especially, being taught to sing the praises of “Dear Leader” – WOW. That’s not how Americans roll.

Or wasn’t, until now.

Someone NOT singing the praises of Barack Hussein Obama is Michelle Paterson, wife of embattled New York Governor, David Paterson. She is mighty upset that Obama wants to push out the first African American governor in NY. So is her husband:

Paterson added, “I never heard of a president asking a governor not to run … so I thought it was very unusual that this would be asked of David and I don’t think it’s right.”

Obama aides have asked the embattled Democratic governor, who has done poorly in recent polls, not to run for governor in 2010.

Paterson said her husband was shocked at the request.

“I think he was stunned. Like I said this is very unusual,” she said.

And Ms. Paterson revealed what Obama whispered into Gov. Paterson’s ear when they met the other day. Are you ready? According to First Lady:

Ms. Paterson also said that Obama told the governor during a trip to upstate New York on Monday that he was “a little chagrined about how the White House handled the message.”

He was not chagrined at the MESSAGE to the governor, mind you, not at the backstabbing of Gov. Paterson, but the way it was HANDLED. Oh, I am sure The One made it ALL better with that admission.

I wonder if THAT is going to make it into the elementary school song of praise to Obama? I’m guessing not…

What a difference a month makes! When my last controversial column posted on Salon in the second week of August, most Democrats seemed frozen in suspended animation, not daring to criticize the Obama administration’s bungling of healthcare reform lest it give aid and comfort to the GOP. Well, that ice dam sure broke with a roar. Dissident Democrats found their voices, and by late August even the liberal lemmings of the mainstream media, from CBS to CNN, had drastically altered their tone of reportage, from priggish disdain of the town hall insurgency to frank admission of serious problems in the healthcare bills as well as of Obama’s declining national support.

…As an Obama supporter and contributor, I am outraged at the slowness with which the standing army of Democratic consultants and commentators publicly expressed discontent with the administration’s strategic missteps this year. … from week one after the inauguration, when Obama went flat as a rug in letting Congress pass that obscenely bloated stimulus package. Had more Democrats protested, the administration would have felt less arrogantly emboldened to jam through a cap-and-trade bill whose costs have made it virtually impossible for an alarmed public to accept the gargantuan expenses of national healthcare reform. (Who is naive enough to believe that Obama’s plan would be deficit-neutral? Or that major cuts could be achieved without drastic rationing?)

Due respect to Ms. Paglia, she might ask herself why she bought into any of this before the election. We did not. Their disastrous spending plans: using the cover of the economic crisis to push through pet projects under the phony label of stimulus, offering bailouts of Wall St., not Main Street. People are without jobs, losing their homes and they are playing games with our money? Most readers at NQ sensed where Obama’s allegiance would be 18 months ago. I find precious little satisfaction in yet another prominent Obama supporter expressing disgust. The stakes are too high and we are now stuck.

I am grateful, however, that a respected voice is calling the arrogant Dem leadership out on its despicable characterizations of American citizens, who are rightfully outraged at this mess:

By foolishly trying to reduce all objections to healthcare reform to the malevolence of obstructionist Republicans, Democrats have managed to destroy the national coalition that elected Obama and that is unlikely to be repaired. If Obama fails to win reelection, let the blame be first laid at the door of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who at a pivotal point threw gasoline on the flames by comparing angry American citizens to Nazis.

Pelosi needs to lose her seat for that one. Disgraceful.

Paglia seems to think Obama might turn it around with a great speech, but wonders if too much damage has already been done. She has written the Dems off is 2012, unless Republicans nominate someone dead from the neck up – entirely possible. Paglia says she “has been calling for heads to roll at the White House from the get-go”:

…Thankfully, they do seem to be falling faster — as witness the middle-of-the-night bum’s rush given to “green jobs” czar Van Jones last week — but there’s a long way to go. An example of the provincial amateurism of current White House operations was the way the president’s innocuous back-to-school pep talk got sandbagged by imbecilic support materials soliciting students to write fantasy letters to “help” the president (a coercive directive quickly withdrawn under pressure). Even worse, the entire project was stupidly scheduled to conflict with the busy opening days of class this week, when harried teachers already have their hands full. Comically, some major school districts, including New York City, were not even open yet. And this is the gang who wants to revamp national healthcare?

Why did it take so long for Democrats to realize that this year’s tea party and town hall uprisings were a genuine barometer of widespread public discontent and not simply a staged scenario by kooks and conspirators?

Ms. Paglia still betrays a trusting naiveté here, thinking that Democrats were too insulated to know the protests were genuine. Not so. The Obama Administration simply continued the same techniques of the Obama campaign – demonize any opponents in order to silence them. She acknowledges that network and cable TV are not the central forums for debate any longer. They just play out more junk politics, backing their respective brands. Ms. Paglia notes…

…the truly transformative political energy is coming from talk radio and the Web — both of which Democrat-sponsored proposals have threatened to stifle, in defiance of freedom of speech guarantees in the Bill of Rights. …[O]n talk radio, which I have resumed monitoring around the clock because of the healthcare fiasco … I heard the passionate voices of callers coming directly from the town hall meetings. Hence I was alerted to the depth and intensity of national sentiment long before others who were simply watching staged, manipulated TV shows.

While she concludes her column giving the Republicans some well deserved slaps as well (and I encourage you to read the rest of her piece for yourself), most of it is devoted to pointing out Democratic Party arrogance. This is what the Clinton wing of the party, cruelly cast aside along with Hillary after the primaries, have noted as well. Ms. Paglia asks questions many here would find familiar:

Why has the Democratic Party become so arrogantly detached from ordinary Americans? Though they claim to speak for the poor and dispossessed, Democrats have increasingly become the party of an upper-middle-class professional elite, top-heavy with journalists, academics and lawyers (one reason for the hypocritical absence of tort reform in the healthcare bills). Weirdly, given their worship of highly individualistic, secularized self-actualization, such professionals are as a whole amazingly credulous these days about big-government solutions to every social problem. They see no danger in expanding government authority and intrusive, wasteful bureaucracy. This is, I submit, a stunning turn away from the anti-authority and anti-establishment principles of authentic 1960s leftism.

But affluent middle-class Democrats now seem to be complacently servile toward authority and automatically believe everything party leaders tell them. …Independent thought and logical analysis of argument are no longer taught. Elite education in the U.S. has become a frenetic assembly line of competitive college application to schools where ideological brainwashing is so pandemic that it’s invisible.

If any of Obama’s supporters had been capable of critical thought last year, they would have seen through his ridiculous promises and contradictory policy statements and had the sense to turn away. As this article is a prelude to President Obama’s big speech on healthcare this evening, Ms. Paglia’s next comments reveal the shortcomings of a compliant media and congress…

Throughout this fractious summer, I was dismayed not just at the self-defeating silence of Democrats at the gaping holes or evasions in the healthcare bills but also at the fogginess or insipidity of articles and Op-Eds about the controversy emanating from liberal mainstream media and Web sources. By a proportion of something like 10-to-1, negative articles by conservatives were vastly more detailed, specific and practical about the proposals than were supportive articles by Democrats, which often made gestures rather than arguments and brimmed with emotion and sneers. There was a glaring inability in most Democratic commentary to think ahead and forecast what would or could be the actual snarled consequences — in terms of delays, denial of services, errors, miscommunications and gross invasions of privacy — of a massive single-payer overhaul of the healthcare system in a nation as large and populous as ours. It was as if Democrats live in a utopian dream world, divorced from the daily demands and realities of organization and management.

Yes, the party in power does seem oddly divorced from reality as if wishing at the foot of President Obama’s HOPE poster would make their rosy predictions about the effects of their reckless leglislation come true. This past week, other columnists have pointed out that dissent and disagreement are a value to any President. Blank stares and idol worship will not make this Administration better. For the sake of our country, it would be refreshing change indeed if someone in the White House showed actual concern for the needs of Americans and went back to doing the people’s business. I think that may only happen if left, right and center keep speaking out and keep the pressure on. Only fear of the voters might have any effect whatsoever. And I’m not even sure of that.

Ms. Paglia, for one, worries it’s too late for Obama to turn it around…

A number of videos and comments on Youtube and elsewhere have compared the personality cult surrounding Barack Obama with Adolph Hitler, drawing parallels among other things with the way that thuggish supporters have tried to silence Obama’s opponents, the way people like the Black Panthers – in a manner similar to Hitler’s Brownshirts – tried to stop people voting, and the way the media has been manipulated in his favor, just as it was in Hitler’s day.

There have been further parallels drawn with the way Obama has got support from leading businessmen like George Soros, Warren Buffett, the owners of Google and Youtube among others, while Hitler too had support from top industrialists – like steel tycoons Alfred Krupp and Fritz Thyssen – who contributed huge amounts to Hitler’s funds and mistakenly believed that they could make Hitler dance to their tune.

Some have also drawn parallels between Obama and other charismatic leaders who led their followers to oblivion, including David Koresh of the Branch Davidian and Jim Jones of the Jonestown mass suicide. Saddam Hussein is another that springs to mind.

One thing that all these people had in common, apart from being the center of charismatic personality cults, was that they all became recklessly suicidal when things began to go wrong, and took as many people down with them as they could.

This is a prospect that I find even more disturbing than talk of Obama’s socialist leanings and his connection with unsavory people like Jeremiah Wright and terrorists like Bill Ayres.

What led to the downfall of these charismatic leaders and their followers was the idolatry surrounding them and the huge weight of expectations that rested on them.

The pressures of such idolatry and expectations can unhinge even the most well balanced and well-intentioned people. But most if not all of these people were not exactly well balanced, however persuasive they might have been with their followers.

Most if not all suffered problems of self esteem following traumatic childhoods, like Obama’s father abandoning his family, and being moved around from place to place as a child and not being able to settle.

A common result of such childhood trauma and the low self esteem it generates is a deep-seated need for approval and acclamation, and in this Obama has probably exceeded his wildest dreams. He has become an idol to millions and millions.

One of the big dangers is that the objects of such idolatry begin to believe their own hype. Even if they don’t, they almost inevitably begin to lose touch with reality.

It’s what killed Elvis Presley in the end. He became an object of worship and he couldn’t cope with it. He was after all just a simple country boy and this idolatry pushed him increasingly into a world in which he no longer had any idea of where reality began or ended.

Nobody can cope with the pressure of such idolatry, and nobody can cope with the kind of expectations Obama’s followers have heaped upon his shoulders. Like the expectations of the woman who expected Obama to pay her mortgage and her gas bills.

Now she was not alone in this. It is obvious that there are many, many people who believe that Obama is going to be the answer to all their problems. And the sad, the tragic thing is, he is not.

In a way the whole situation reminds me of the time in 1960 when the Congo region of Africa gained its independence from Belgium. The people of the Congo thought this was going to be the end of hunger and the start of prosperity for all. People teemed into the city from the countryside carrying buckets and baskets and anything else they could find to hold all the good things they expected to be given as a result of national independence. And of course they were sadly disappointed.

The totally unrealistic expectations surrounding Obama are not too far removed from the expectations ifrom the the Congo during that time, and it these unrealistic expectations that have led to some vomit-inducing hymns of praise for a man who has proved nothing so far except that he is a very skillful talker and a great manipulator of people, just as Hitler was.

Now one can understand and sympathize to some extent with the fact that to many people he represents a triumph over racism, even though some might argue that there has been reverse racism with the vast majority of black Americans voting for him even though he was the least qualified of all the candidates.

But the feelings of many Obama supporters have gone far beyond the realms of sanity or reality. For many people Obama has become a cult figure, and the history of cult figures shows they are extremely vulnerable to self-destruction.

In the past, when expectations have exceeded the reality of what is possible, the tendency has been for those in power to take reckless measures, and this is one of the dangers we face with Obama. Added to this is the fact that with no experience of government, he has no solid foundation on which to base any decisions.

I suspect that Obama may already be increasingly disturbed by the idolatry and expectations surrounding him. I wouldn’t be surprised if he holds many of his followers in contempt for the impossible things they expect of him, a man with no real training or experience to govern the most powerful nation in the world.

But there are many signs that Obama actually believes in his own hype, and that is the most frightening thing of all.

Why didn’t they say this in their magazine BEFORE the election?

Yesterday I shared with you the audio of Tom Brokaw being interviewed by Charlie Rose where both men admit they don’t know who Obama really is or what he intends to do in office. Now, a post election admission from Jon Meacham and Evan Thomas of Newsweek; also interviewed by Charlie Rose. Audio is provided with commentary by Rush Limbaugh (transcript):

MEACHAM: You know, they don’t let him out. And have you ever seen a victory speech where there was no one else on stage?

ROSE: Mmm.

MEACHAM: No adoring wife, no cute kid. He is the messenger.

THOMAS: There is a slightly creepy cult of personality about all this. I mean, he’s such an admirable –

ROSE: Slightly. Creepy. Cult of personality.

THOMAS: Yes.

ROSE: What’s slightly creepy about it?

THOMAS: It — it — it just makes me a little uneasy that he’s so singular. He’s clearly managing his own spectacle. He’s a deeply manipulative guy.

RUSH: Now, let me tell you what they’re saying that they’re not saying. We’ve seen this before. We have seen this creepy cult of personality. We have seen this singular, managing his own spectacle. We’ve seen this deeply manipulative guy. We saw this before. They are scared. They are not saying that, but I hear fear. Here’s the next bite. Charlie Rose continues here with a question.

ROSE: Watching him last night in that speech, he finishes –

MEACHAM: Yeah.

ROSE: — and he sort of — it’s almost like he then ascends to look at the circumstance.

MEACHAM: He watches us watching him.

THOMAS: Watching him!

ROSE: Exactly!

THOMAS: He does –

MEACHAM: It’s amazing.

ROSE: It is amazing.

THOMAS: He writes about this metaphor being a screen upon which Americans will project. He said they want of Barack Obama; I’m not sure I am Barack Obama.

ROSE: Mmm!

THOMAS: He had — he has the self-awareness to know that this creature he’s designed isn’t necessarily a real person, and he’s self-aware enough –

ROSE: Ahhhhhh!

RUSH: Ahhhh. Charlie Rose, light goes on, ahhhh. Self-aware enough to know that this creature he’s designed isn’t necessarily a real person.

That is fear. These guys are looking at Obama and they’ve seen him the exact way we have, all of this time. They only now after they think they got him into office are now starting to talk about their fears about how nobody knows anything about him, his resume is thin, he’s only written two books, and they’re autobiographies, we don’t know what other books he’s read. Yes, we do.

We don’t know anything about him. It’s creepy, never seen a victory speech with nobody on stage — what is this making fun of Biden, by the way?

Locking Biden in the bar so he doesn’t come out? Look at all they hid. Look at all that they refused to report.

They had plenty of chances to write editorials at Newsweek magazine, and they didn’t write one reflective of what they really saw and know and fear about Obama.

At what point will Meacham and Thomas, along with Brokaw and so many others face the fact that they committed journalistic malpractice by hiding the character concerns they are only now sharing about Obama?

Were they just tooooo busy digging dirt on Sarah Palin’s children and Joe the Plumber to tell the American people what a “creepy,” “manipulative,” “creature” Obama is?

…………..

Read the original post and comments at Flopping Aces’ “Newsweek Editors: Obama a “Creepy,” “Deeply Manipulative,” “Creature”.

started running the “stages of grief” trope on Hillary supporters way back in February—you know, from anger, through denial, bargaining, depression, to acceptance. It’s an easy riff to run, even for bad writers, so it’s been all over the Obama blogs

Of course this “stages of grief” narrative oozed with sexism and condescension. The subtext implied that Hillary’s female supporters, emotional at the loss, had to be given post-partum recovery time, but then they would come around and, for those hold-outs, a few reminders about Roe v. Wade would get them in line. That was the strategy throughout the summer.

McCain’s selection of Palin as vice president, exquisitely timed to halt Obama’s bounce, has dominated the news for more than two weeks. It has also radically re-shaped the race. By most reports, Obama is slightly behind McCain in national polls and, more importantly, McCain has taken the lead in the electoral college.

The panic from the Obamabots in palpable.

Let me suggest that there are 3 levels of panic.

1. Wunderwaffen.

During World War Two, Hitler forced his beleaguered arms manufacturers to produce “miracle weapons,” strange armaments which he believed would turn the war in Germany’s favor.

Like armchair generals in a losing battle, losing political campaigns have supporters who desire the Wunderwaffen, a magical weapon which can sink the other side or a proven winner who can take the reins of the campaign and guide it to victory. In 2004, while Kerry was being hammered by Bush, many pleaded for James Carville to take over Kerry’s war room and provide the message discipline from 1992. From the Democratic Underground, August 27, 2004:

I have been saying this for over a month now…I wrote Mr Carville the following email:

Mr. Carville, please save the Kerry campaign!
He is throwing out sound bites that are perfect ammo for Rove and his evil crew. You can train this man.You can save this campaign and this country. We need you Mr. Carville.

In 2008, as victory becomes increasingly uncertain, Obama supporters are banking on voter registration and the belief that cell phone users are not accounted for in national polls. The same theories were trotted out in 2004 but the polls then fairly predicted the actual vote. However, there are even stranger ideas floating around Obama-land. At TalkLeft, there’s an armchair general named mmc9431 who believes that Obama should announce part of his cabinet now and turn them into roving ambassadors for the campaign:

Obama needs to come out with something very bold on his own if he’s going to have any chance of regaining the advantage.
Maybe he should announce ahead of time, 3 of his cabinet choices that would motivate his base. Sec of State, Attorney General and Sec of Treasury. These 3 could then go out and campaign of their platform. We’d have three people out there constantly pounding on issues rather than personalities.

Likewise, over at Daily Kos, Ursa Majority’s Wunderwaffen is one good television ad that will convince all the “low information” rubes to vote for Obama:

Yes, you heard it right. We need a killer ad (radio and TV) to get back onto message while shrinking McCain. And, with middle and low information swing voters, you’ve got to try to tie it all together in one digestible message. So, let’s get back to our effective messages of the post “Obama as Britney” era (i.e., McCain isn’t taking the issues seriously) and use McCain’s words and actions against him.

2. Denial

Obama supporters are now somewhere between searching for the magic bullet and denying that anything is wrong. The Kerry campaign is also rich with similar examples at a similar time in the campaign.

On September 17, 2004, almost exactly four years ago, Cartooner, at Democratic Underground, predicted that John Kerry would win in a landslide:

Call it an epiphany; call it crazy, and it’s just a hunch; but hey, A HUNCH made Quasi Modo famous…

~snip~

The economy, health care, jobs, LIES,

the messages are FINALLY STARTING TO RESONATE …

Ok… Maybe I’m an optimist; but I think Kerry will win on a
LANDSLIDE …

This campaign is also filled with delusion. A poster on Craig’s List gives Obama odds I’d like to take to Las Vegas:

Date: 2008-09-12, 12:32AM EDT
Location: new haven

He’s definitely going to win. No question.

What chances would you give him? I’d give him 100%.

3. Acceptance

The last stage is filled with sadness and recriminations.

Lentinel writes:

my heart sinks.
I lay some of the blame at Obama’s door.
As soon as he was assured of the nomination he turned South, figuratively speaking.
He voted for FISA.
He disowned public financing.
He went on preaching to evangelicals.
He waffled on his commitment to withdraw troops from Iraq.
He waffled on his commitment to the right of women to an abortion.
And, of course, he went on to treat Hillary Clinton and her supporters like dirt.

And Daily Kos’ DaveinSiliconValley has a diary titled: “Why (Sadly) Obama Will Probably Lose”

A few days ago I had a conversation with a mid-fifties nonreligious, pro-choice, Caucasian, suburban mother who thinks the Iraq war was a terrible mistake, that Bush was a terrible president, and is concerned that McCain may get us into another war, but she is “seriously thinking” about voting for McCain. I will give you a clue. She is absolutely going to vote for McCain.

I asked, given the way she feels on the issues, why isn’t she voting for Obama? She said “I don’t know.” I pressed her. She said, “I don’t trust him.” I asked why and she said “I don’t know.”

Obama can hit this lady with a thousand commercials explaining his stand on the issues and why his plans for the country are better than McCain’s plans and it will have no effect whatsoever on her vote. Zero. She is issue-proof.

What’s going on? Is it just subliminal racism? It’s not that simple.

After the 2004 election, Democrats became obsessed with psychoanalyzing the electorate. I engaged in some of this myself. Searching for answers, we read What’s the Matter with Kansas? but failed to find the answer. Believing, like DaveinSiliconvalley, that Republicans controlled the electorate with subliminal powers, we read George Lakoff’s Don’t think of an Elephant, but we found that framing issues is only one small part of winning elections. Framing can come across as patronizing, e.g., you’re pushing your agenda on the electorate instead of listening to their needs.

In 2006, as I began thinking about the next presidential cycle, I finally got around to reading Hillary’s Living History and President Clinton’s My Life. The Clintons, both policy wonks, believe that winning campaigns put forward good policies which appeal to the electorate’s aspirations. The voters do not need to be cajoled or hypnotized into voting for a candidate. The voters decide the issues and the politicians offer solutions.

The Clintons taught Democrats how to win elections. Remember, Bill Clinton was the first Democrat elected to a second term since 1936. Also, let’s not forget the magnitude of Hillary’s victories; she won Florida, Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Kentucky; she won West Virginia by 40%. A few caucus states and Obama’s delegate stealing in Michigan made the difference. Let’s not pretend that Obama was the people’s choice. The primary campaign was not a decisive win by either candidate, and millions of Hillary supporters will never forgive the way she was treated by those within the Party, to say nothing of the media.

The Clintons win by offering proposals to make people’s lives better. On the campaign trail, they talk incessantly about helping working people, and they both have an unwavering commitment to the nation’s defense. The Clintons reject flowery rhetoric and use a clear communication strategy. Their strategy is effective; they know how to build winning coalitions. I have no doubt that Hillary would now be locking down battleground states on her march to the White House.

Hillary won the popular vote and nearly all the important states. She was positioned to win the General Election. Hillary, like President Clinton, built a coalition based on economic opportunity and national renewal. Obama took the nomination because he controlled much of the Party’s infrastructure: his supporters controlled the hierarchy of the Democratic Party, specifically the Rules and Bylaws Committee, and he was funded and fueled by the activist base, by groups like MoveOn.org, and he was supported by the netroots and the media.

Now that the General Election is in peril, these groups, who failed to provide the base of the Party with any reason to vote for Obama other than habit, scramble to connect with the very voters they demonized during the primary as “low information” and hopelessly bitter. No one television ad or high paid adviser can turn the tide. Let them panic.

My oldest brother sent me the piece Gloria Steinem wrote on Gov. Palin, an elitist, patronizing piece in which she diminishes people who hunt (not understanding, I guess, that many people hunt to put FOOD on the table, especially in these difficult economic times), among other smears. So, I felt compelled to write him back. A lot of this is information those who have been paying attention already know:

I am not an apologist for Sarah Palin, but I find the argument that SHE is inexperienced as Steinem said to be laughable. The DNC selected the least experienced candidate ever, one who refuses to make available ANY paper trail at all – no college or law school transcripts, no medical records, no passports, no birth certificates, and claims he had NOT ONE PAPER or DATE BOOK available from his time in the IL Senate (which is part-time service, btw). One who has no legislative accomplishments of note to his name. Never mind the LONG list of his sordid associates which throw his whole “good judgment” stance out the window.

Or his lack of chairing ONE meeting of the European Affairs Subcommittee, which oversees Afghanistan, and now claims that we need to do more abt Afghanistan,and who wants to return to the foreign policy of DONALD RUMSFELD…If this was BUSH, the Progressives would be going batshit crazy screaming our fool heads off.


But for some reason, this is all fine and dandy. Never mind all of the university professors who are now shrugging off his constant plagiarizing (and his picking a running mate who is also a plagiarizer), an act that can get students thrown OUT of universities. Why? I really don’t get this infatuation with this man! Without a teleprompter, he can barely even talk!! But he is “eloquent,” and has “good judgm ent.” Um, no. And he is sexist as all hell, to boot.

And for some reason, Obama is constantly comparing himself to the VP pick, not the presidential nominee. Much easier for him to pick on a woman than a man, as he demonstrated time and again during this campaign. Flipping Hillary off, brushing her off his shoulder and his shoe, having “99 Problems BUt a Bitch Ain’t One” playing when he won Iowa. Class act this guy. Oh, and for what it’s worth – he lives 1 1/2 blocks away from Bill Ayers, who lives right down the street from the Farrakhan Compound. What a coincidence.

Oh – is now when I tell you that my brother has a PhD., and developed some major software, whose clients include NASA? Yeah. He’s supposed to be smart (my younger brother and his wife – both PhDs – also are big Obama supporters, at least my brother is. My sis-in-law is a “Vote Democrat” no matter what more than anything.). Just goes to show that there is a difference between being educated and having common sense. I can say that because I have BOTH!!! Ahem.

Here’s what he wrote back:

These are interesting accusations. Do you know these things for a fact? What is your source of information? Is there some doubt about the fact that Obama was elected president of the Harvard Law Review? You don’t get to that place by being a flaky biscuit. Is there any doubt about the fact that McCain was at the bottom of his class at the Naval Academy?

I don’t follow you with the Donald Rumsfield foreign policy thing. What do you mean?

One thing I can say for sure. I have seen Obama in many interviews and town hall type conversations, besides the podium speeches. He has always impressed me with his speaking ability in off the cuff situations. This is a sharp dude.

I also like Joe Biden very much. He is a solid, decent, knowledgeable person.

At the end of the day, this is about policies, not personalities. Who do you think is going to best implement the objectives of Hillary Clinton? If you say McCain-Palin, then I don’t see how you get there.

Oh, boy. Evidently, he does not have the same desire for sources when others are “accused,” but whatever. And yes, he DID go there about the personalities. Here’s my response:

Yes, I know these things for a fact. This is what I do every day, all day long.

I don’t know if I will even vote this year, so don’t assume I am voting for McCain/Palin. I can say that McCain is an honorable man, and has given his entire life i n service to this country. That means something. He is also moderate, and a reformer, something Obama will NEVER be (oh – today’s BIG report is about Obama raging on Palin, particularly about the Bridge to Nowhere, which she did get rid of afterall – and which HE VOTED FOR TWICE!!! He claimed, “Palin Can’t Just Make Stuff Up!” No, that purview belongs to Obama alone.). But Obama will never get my vote. He should never have assumed he would.

So that’s how my morning started – not at ALL about what I was going to write today. But you never know what is going to come up, I reckon. And I know there is evern more about Obama, but I figured I was pushing my luck with him actually reading it this far.

Ah, families…

The 200,000 souls who thronged to his speech in Berlin came not just for him, he told the enthralled audience of congressional representatives. “I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions,” he said, according to the source.

Holy Cow. Now, I should admit that I was GOING to write some more about Kaine and his BFF, Obama, as well as their joint BFF, Joe Lieberman, but honestly, how can I resist THIS??

“(T)his is the moment, as Nancy [Pelosi] noted, that the world is waiting for.”

And:

“I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions.”

Well, YEAH, if what the world has been waiting for, and what represents America returning to its “best Traditions” is an arrogant, narcissistic, sexist, thuggish, unethical, pandering, coercing, power-hungry Messiah-wannabe, then, yes – Obama is our guy!!!

I must be some kind of heathen, though, because I just don’t buy it (and before I go on, PLEASE, Oborgabots – PLEASE don’t waste “Comment” space going on and on about how that is not a full quote, and is taken out of context. Frankly, I don’t give a damn if what comes before it is, “somehow” and ends with, “but it should be CLINTON if it is ‘returning’ to its best traditions,” it is the absolute HEIGHT of arrogance and narcissism. Now, go away – let the grown ups talk.). Obama has made the classic mistake – he now believes his own Axelrovian hype. He really DOES think he is The One For Whom We Have Been Waiting! Wowie zowie!!

Last night, I was reading a book by Kathy Reichs, a professor at UNC-Charlotte. Her books are the basis for the show, “Bones.” In this particular book, Death Du Jour, the question of cults comes up. Now her main character, Tempe Brennan, is also a professor art UNCC, a forensic anthropologist. Because of a case on which she is working, she goes to a sociology professor at UNCC (and the information in this books on cults is legitimate – it comes from another UNCC professor of Religious Studies, James Tabor). Because I care, I am going to type out the dialogue for you. Once you read it, you will see why. Dr. Brennan’s comments will be in italics. Red, the Sociology professor’s, will be in regular typeface. Okey dokey – ready? Here we go:

“All right. What’s a cult?”

“Cults are not just groups of crazies who follow weird leaders. At least the way I use the term, they are organizations with a set of common features.” (On age 295, Red makes the point that cults can also be political parties.)

“Yes.” I leaned back in my chair.

“A cult forms around a charismatic individual who promises something. This individual professes some special knowledge. Sometimes the claim is access to ancient secrets, sometimes it’s an entirely new discovery to which he or she alone is privy. Sometimes it’s a combination of both. The leader offers to share the information with those who follow. Some leaders offer utopia. Or a way out. Just come along, follow me. I’ll make the decisions. All will be fine.”

“How does that differ from a priest or rabbi?”

“In a cult it’s this charismatic leader who eventually becomes the object of devotion; in some cases he’s actually deified. And as that happens, the leader comes to hold extraordinary control over the lives of his followers.

“Cults are totalistic, authoritarian. The leader is supreme and delegates power to very few. The leader’s morality becomes the only acceptable theology. The only acceptable behavior. And, as I said, veneration is eventually centered on him, not on supreme beings or abstract principles.

“And often there is a double set of ethics. Members are urged to be honest and loving to each other but to deceive and shun outsiders. (Emphasis mine.) Established religions tend to follow one set of rules for everybody.”

“How does a leader gain such control?”

“That’s another important element. Thought reform. Cult leaders use a variety of psychological processes to manipulate their members. Some leaders are fairly benign, but others are not and really exploit the idealism of their followers.

“The way I see it, there are two broad types of cults, both of which use thought reform. The commercially packaged ‘awareness programs’” – he gestured quotation marks – “use very intense persuasion techniques. These groups keep members by getting them to buy more and more courses.

“Then there are the cults that recruit followers for life. These groups use organized psychological and social persuasion to produce extreme attitudinal changes. As a result they come to exert enormous control over the lives of their members. They are manipulative, deceptive, and highly exploitative.”

Amy here – hmmm, let’s just guess which one I think Obama is?!?! Ahem. The discussion continues, but I thought this was significant:

“I still don’t see why anyone but a nutcase would fall for such crap.”

“Not at all.” He shook his head. “It’s not just marginal people who get sucked in. In some studies approximately two thirds of the respondents come from normal families and were demonstrating age-appropriate behavior when they entered a cult.”

“Has your research shed light on why people seek out these movements?”

“Often they don’t. These groups seek you. And as I’ve said, these leaders can be incredibly charming and persuasive.”

AMY here – the discussion continues, and then this question: “I just don’t get it, Red. How can people be so gullible?”

“It’s seductive to think that you’re elite. Chosen. Most cults teach their members that only they are enlightened and everyone else in the world is left out. Lesser in some way. It’s powerful stuff.” (Kathy Reichs, Death Du Jour, 1999, pp 295 – 300)

See what I mean?? Do you see it?!? To me it is crystal clear. Obama has been engaging in “thought reform,” as discussed in this book, and has taken it to a massive level. For him to come to the House of Representatives as The Anointed One, elevating himself to a height neither deserved or REAL, says a lot. And it says just as much about all of the House members who clapped themselves silly. They want to bask in the glow of The One, they want to show they, too, are in his employ. It is frightening stuff, and we cannot allow him to take over this country. There is no telling what will happen if he does. I thought Bush was bad, but I fear Obama more. He has demonstrated time and time again that he is beholden to no person, no position. He can dismiss even relatives with seeming ease, and change positions as the wind blows. He is a dangerous man, and his followers likewise. Not all of them, mind you, but enough of them seem to have this mentality, which is mighty scary. (The lengths to which some of them have gone is truly scary – hnging a dead rabbit on someone’s door and slashing their tires, for example. That is one extreme, but stealing caucus packets to ENSURE the victory of their One is in the same realm – they will stop at nothing to ensure their Master’s success.)

Again – Superdelegates – this man has flown off into incredibly heady flights of fancy, and cannot be trusted with the most important job on the face of the planet. A cult leader is not what we need to lead us out of our current climate. We need someone whose feet are on the ground, who is clear-headed, who stands with ALL Americans, not just her cultish gathering. There is time. Start now. Lay the groundwork. And come the end of August, protect us from this self-proclaimed Messiah. This heathen has no use for him.

GO TO IOwnMyVote.com and take the survey on Platform Reform for the Democratic Party. Let YOUR voice be counted (well, maybe – this IS the Democratic Party I’m talking about here, but have FAITH that it will matter!).

There is discussion that by moving the Democratic National headquarters to Chicago, he is not only increasing revenue for these characters, he is setting up Chicago as a site for the Olympics. Knowing Obama’s associations in the Windy City suggests that this move is not altruistic.

Now we are hearing that Obama will once again break with tradition during the Democratic National Convention to give his acceptance speech at a huge rally in the stadium of the Denver Broncos, known as Invesco Field. (See NewHampster’s post for some financial information on Invesco.)

The New York Times describes it this way:

The Democratic National Convention Committee and the Obama campaign announced on Monday that they would break with tradition and move the final day of convention activities, including the acceptance speech, from the Pepsi Center in Denver to Invesco Field… which can hold more than 75,000. A sea of 75,000 people swarmed around Senator Barack Obama at a rally in Portland, Ore. in May ..and Mr. Obama is planning a repeat performance at the Democratic National Convention in August..

Wanting an auspicious event, Obama will deliver his speech on August 28th, the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech. And if that is not propitious enough, Obama’s campaign is broadcasting that the last person to give such a speech to such a large crowd was in 1960, when John F. Kennedy addressed a similarly sized audience at Memorial Stadium in Los Angeles. Not everyone is convinced that bigger is better. Matt Burns of the RNC stated:

Not surprisingly, Senator Obama and his fellow Democrats are more focused on stagecraft and theatrics than providing real solutions to the challenges facing our nation.

Nor does everyone see the double omens of King and Kennedy as a positive reflection of Obama. Conservative commentator, Michael Barone said:

No one has done it since Kennedy because no one thought he could fill a stadium since Kennedy. Evidently Obama feels he can and feels he can stop it raining too.

Of course Howard Dean is excited about the decision. Dean said of moving the speech:

This is very much in keeping with Senator Obama’s philosophy and, I might add, my philosophy as well. I think it’s very fitting, especially the way Sen. Obama got here with his enourmous grassroots operation.

One thing we can be sure is part of Dean’s “philosophy” is that the Obama campaign has turned the change of venue into a fund raising event, something absolutely necessary for the impoverished Democratic Party. As the Washington Post put it:

And how did the campaign break the news to supporters? How else? Through an Internet fund-raising appeal.”I wanted you to be the first to hear the news,” campaign manager David Plouffe wrote in an e-mail to Obama’s millions of contributors. “…Barack has made it clear that this is your convention, not his.”

Prior to the August convention, during his trip to Europe this month Obama’s campaign wants him to give a speech at the Brandenburg Gates in Berlin. By doing so, Obama will accomplish an ancestral hat trick and evoke Ronald Reagan who addressed West Berliners there in 1987.

I understand that for Barack Obama, attempting to emulate powerful and famous people is essential. Obama himself has no record of achievement. He is now known as Backtrack Obama for all his flip flopping, and no doubt he feels he must persuade people by imitating his successful forebears.

But it’s creepy that he’s using the propaganda strategy of rallying huge crowds to hear him, while calling it an event for the people. It’s creepy because this tactic of using an energized mob has been utilized by tyrants throughout history. One doesn’t have to go back to ancient Greece, where the word tyrant comes from, to understand my use of the term as it is defined in Wikipedia:

In ancient Greece, tyrants were influential opportunists that came to power by securing the support of different factions. The word “tyrant” then carried no ethical censure; it simply referred to anyone who illegally seized executive power to engage in autocratic, though perhaps benevolent, government, or leadership. Support for the tyrants came from the growing class of business people and from the peasants who had no land or were in debt to the wealthy land owners.

As Heidi Li Feldman of The Denver Group said in her interview with Bud White for NQ, “you can’t legitimize something that is not legitimate.”In fact, at his request, Leni Riefenstahl made an amazing documentary about the rise of Adolph Hitler. The film, Triumph of the Will, is a beautiful and moving account of the early days of the Third Reich, of a time when Hitler brought hope and promise to a suffering nation. It is a haunting reminder that the faith and enthusiasm of German people gave rise to arguably the most horrendous deeds in the modern world . But the film itself portrays ordinary people coming together because they heard the charismatic and powerful rhetoric of a leader who promised to improve the lives of all German people. Here is the description from Wikipedia:

The primary aspect of the Nuremberg Rallies was to strengthen the personality cult of Adolf Hitler, portraying Hitler as Germany’s saviour, chosen by providence. The gathered masses listened to the Führer’s speeches, swore loyalty…the rallies served to demonstrate the might of the German people. The visitors of the rallies by their own free will were subordinate to the discipline and order in which they should be reborn as a new people.

I’m not suggesting that Barack Obama is Adolph Hitler. I am suggesting a cautionary tale of tyranny from recent history that has many eerie similarities.

It appears that anyone who blogs with Google supported BLOGSPOT is vulnerable to being shutdown unilaterally if they are targeted by a group of bloggers who claim the site is responsible for spam. All you have to do is click on this link and start your complaint.

Just paste that blog url in there a couple of hundred times. You have the time! You know that if Blogger gets enough of these that Blogger will shut down the site until they get around to reviewing the site.

People complaining do not have to identify themselves. In fact, a small group of thugs can do a lot of damage, at least in the short run.

What would the Obama folks think if we tried to employ the same tactics on them? We could use the same link to shut all Obama blogs down. But that’s the difference between us and them. We are not afraid to debate our ideas. Shutting down discourse is not our thing. Also, we believe that every vote should be counted. Unlike the Obama folks, who disenfranchise 50% of the voters in Michigan and Florida, we say, “count them all.”

BLOGSPOT is putting itself out of business if it keeps this up. Shutting blogs down for no good reason, in fact, for false reasons, tends to piss bloggers off. Folks are starting to vote with their feet. They will go elsewhere and set up shop. A temporary inconvenience but one designed to ensure that the blogger is free to write and speak what he or she believes to be true.

Take a look at the list attack by the Obama thugs.

http://help.blogger.com/?page=troubleshooter.cs&problem=&ItemType=spam&contact_type=Spam&Submit=Continue

A list of Anti-Obama blogs locked up as spam in the past 36 hours

Locked Out:

Old location: http://bluelyon.blogspot.com/

New Location: http://bluelyon.wordpress.com/

Locked Out:

Old Location: http://nobamablog.blogspot.com/

New location: http://nobamablog.wordpress.com/

Locked Out:

http://politicallizard.blogspot.com/ (no alternate blog listed as yet)

Locked Out:

Old Location: http://hillaryorbust.blogspot.com/

This blogger has moved to her own domain at Hillary Or Bust.com

The Hillary or Bust site also lists the following additional blogs have been unfairly locked:

Locked Out:

http://reflections-in-tyme.blogspot.com/ (Native Americans Against Obama)

New Site: http://nativeamericansagainstobama.wordpress.com/

Locked Out:

Old Site: http://mccaindemocrats.blogspot.com/

New Site:http://mccaindemocrats.wordpress.com/

Locked out:

Old Site:
http://politicallizard.blogspot.com/

New Site:
http://thelizardannex.blogspot.com/

Locked Out:

Old Site:

http://comealongway.blogspot.com/

New Site:

http://comealongway.wordpress.com/

I am affiliated with I Own My Vote.

What went wrong?

The representative process of the Democratic Presidential Preference began with the Iowa caucuses and ended with the Montana and South Dakota primaries. Much has been said about the inherent flaws in a process that is not uniform, much of which is very valid and deserves corrective measures.

It is evident that much of the electorate and, in kind, many of our elected officials, do not have a firm grasp of the nominating process: a process that begins at the convention – no sooner and no later. Calls by Democratic Party leaders to have the “nomination” determined on a specific date, has no relevance. Calls to have Super Delegates declare their endorsement before the nominating process begins short-circuits the democratic process.

More importantly, however, we have seen and we know, that our Democracy is in dire need of change. A significant portion of the electorate realizes that our Democracy is at a crossroads: the path we choose today will determine our future with a sense of urgency most generations rarely experience. There is no small reason so many are polarized and refuse to support the “presumptive” Democratic Presidential nominee. The process has been far from normal – if fact, many say it has been undemocratic: Barack Obama was selected, not elected.

We could, and rightfully so, point to a number of factors that lead many to this conclusion:

• Suppression of millions of votes (Florida & Michigan)
• Fraudulent practices in states where caucuses were held
• Media bias
• Discriminatory practices that were allowed to reign free without repudiation

However, there is a much more insidious and covert force working here: George Soros.

The George Soros Factor

George Soros began pouring millions into election finance reform. His millions effectively contributed to the passage of the McCain-Feingold law. While placing a cap on soft-money, it allowed 527′s to secure unlimited donations thereby using these organizations to promote their agenda and support candidates that subscribed to them or message against those that did not.

Soros began a concerted effort to yield influence by acquiring and significantly funding 527s like MoveOn, ACT, Media Matters, and the Center for American Progress. He was a primary backer of the failed Howard Dean Presidential candidacy in 2004. With Howard Dean’s ascension to Democratic Party leader, George Soros was able to yield, through his wealth and in conjunction with the Democratic Alliance, a little known “billionaire’s club”, significant power and influence to alter the make-up of the Democratic Party.

Soros and Nazi Germany

Not known to many, George Soros was the “adopted grandson” of an official in the Nazi government. A 1998 interview with Steve Kroft on “60-Minutes”, Soros explains his upbringing in Nazi Germany and furthermore indicates no sense of “guilt” or remorse for what he not only observed but for that in which he participated.

At the age of 14 he was exposed to the mass shipment of Jews to concentration camps and participated in the looting of personal property. His “formative” years were shaped by the policies of a fascist government; a government whose leader was propelled to the forefront of the national psyche by a phenomenon known as the “Cult of Personality”.

Obama: The Cult of Personality

The Obama campaign is reminiscent of elements of Nazi Germany. For instance, the quid pro quo exchange of volunteerism for “organizational training” offered by the Obama campaign is nothing more than a covert form of assimilation. His campaign’s manipulation of the democratic process, suppression of votes, the infringement on our democratic principles (including free speech), manipulation of the press, and countless other tactics have colluded to expunge the legitimate nominee for the Democratic Presidential candidacy in favor of an illegitimate one.

The briefly paraded but profoundly disturbing “Obama Seal” is yet another indication of the “person” becoming more important than the Party and the United States of America. The arrogance and bold exhibit of ego in using a symbol of our Country for personal gain is indicative of the phenomenon of the “Cult of Personality”. Furthermore, the blind following of his supporters, to discount these assaults on our Democracy, is yet another indicator of this cancerous blight.

Implications for our Democracy

Our Democracy is at stake: period. Many discount the massive outcry to the potential obliteration of our Democratic principles as a fad of “disgruntled Hillary Clinton supporters”. But we are the enlightened.: make no doubt about it.

We have seen the injustices to our Democratic process. To gain this insight, however, it takes a true leader to reveal them. Hillary Clinton has done that. We are enamored not only by her and the issues she represents but because she has gone through this process, to show us the truth.

We are acting. What each of does in the voting booth November 4th, 2008, is, we believe, sacred, personal, and the core of our Democracy. However, we must combat this “Cult of Personality”. We must protect the principles that our forefathers died for to form this new form of government: government for the people by the people. A Democracy with is uniquely American.

We cannot allow George Soros, Howard Dean, Barack Obama, and associated cohorts the deny the will of 18 million voters. George Soros, more than any other American, is the greatest threat to our Democracy. While we point the finger to Barack Obama, Howard Dean, David Axelrod, et. al, we need to hold accountable George Soros and his cronies that have manipulated our Democracy to their benefit.

Make no doubt about it: money talks. George Soros has a sacrificial lamb in Barack Obama. It may be a blessing in disguise he does not know it.

______________

Add your name today at the “I Own My Vote” site.

Only 8,300+ people have viewed this video. No doubt it’ll make the rounds of Republicans’ mailing lists soon.