I don't even sing as well as Lou Reed so this is going to be unrhymed prose; the reference seemed to be a pretty tight wrap is all. Wouldn't be a terrible idea to read the previous two posts and get up to speed with contemporary -- um -- scholarship on the subject.
Well, I suppose it's about Iowa as much as it's about Illinois but all three principals are Chicago all the way, and if you don't already know who Js is then go to another blog. I'm less interested in Oprah herself than what her actions and what's happened subsequently say about Clinton and the Js. What do they say? That Senator Clinton was born to do this. The answer to all the questions I posed in the last two posts is pretty simple and Clinton figured it out long ago. The Js himself doesn't exist. He is 100% a media creation, almost an experiment in the sense of the $1 bet Don Ameche and Ralph Bellamy make about the prospects of success or failure of Dan Ackroyd and Eddie Murphy in Trading Places. The bet, if you will, is over the prospects of Hillary and said Js. Does anyone really think that a normal 46-yo American Black presidential candidate with a Bozo-The-Clown face and ears that stick out like a car with it's doors open could get this close to winning the presidency otherwise? So, instead of really new ideas and a verifiably Democratic post-Vietnam candidate, oh, Reps. Scott or Jackson, Jr., or for that matter Feingold or Wyden, all of whom truly present something generationally different and each of whom is better looking than BozoEars, we've got the Js.
The Js is the perfect MSM candidate and was more-or-less anointed as such with the overrated speech in 2004. I don't think I have to catalog it again., but ok, in short-hand. Black, but un-Black. Smart, but neither intellectual nor intellectually curious. Grandiloquent in an ersatz King style, but not eloquent. Religious, of course. Into jazz and basketball, of course. A flexible centrist with a natural tendency toward caving in to Republicans on social issues and a neo-liberal facile enough to hit all the signifiers of both the traditional liberal and conservative, "anti-war" and anti-gay. His neo-liberalism is basically founded in saying what's expected of him. He has no knowledge or views of his own on the political economy at all, nor is he slightly interested. At the very least, if he were a neo-liberal true believer it would show a coherent point of view, albeit not one I like. I cannot tell you exactly where the Js stands on any issue. I just don't know.
A media creation against a very good candidate whom the media know will do them no favors if elected, which one do you think will get the good press? This is a big problem for the MSM. Clinton sells newspapers but she has plenty of scores to settle. It's hard to say whether she hates the MSM more for their treatment of the her, the Big Dog, or Chelsea. It's a combination of all three but I think the latter is the one that she's really pissed-off about. Expect JohnnyCrippleHands to retire soon after she's elected. Otherwise, life in the Senate in a Hillary Clinton presidency would not be a tremendous amount of fun for Walnuts, the MSM creation previous to Js. Nobody remember? The recent "bitch" remark just proves that McCain's all-in here and doesn't care anymore about the details. She wins, he walks. Old Iguana Head does not have a likely loss to Janet Napolitano in 2010 in him. Just as the media allowed the "bitch" business to go down without a word of disapproval but many words of encouragement, sometime during the Dog's adminsitration CrippleHands broke a rule that neither Lee Atwater nor even "Dutch" Schultz were cold-blooded enough to violate. He went after the child. When she was a teenager. There's your fucking war hero. He's a fucking disgrace to his service. He's a fucking coward. Makes vulgar fun of a child on national television. And just like last week, the media is either silent or applauds. I see you hiding in the corner there, Maureen Dowd. You can hide from me, but you can't hide from Hillary Clinton. Of course the MSM are all-in against Hillary Clinton because there's no telling how she's going to extract her revenge for this. For the Dog. For all the bullshit she's taken herself to this point.
So, while Clinton is good copy, the incovenient problem for the media is that she has completely out-classed the Js in the campaign. That doesn't prove anything. She's out-classed 5 more gifted and capable Democrats than the Js is. But wearing the MSM colors, the Js is supposed to be out-classing her. Wow. If anything, as Paul Krugman illustrates nicely, the Js has cleared up the only hurdle to her getting the nomination. He, by direct comparison, has made her seem more left-wing than she really is. If I had any doubts before, I'm now sold. And I was before and am now far to her left ideologically.
Enter Oprah. This is a desperation move by Obama and by Oprah herself as an MSM doyenne. With the Js candidacy barely alive after the Las Vegas debate, it's all-in for Iowa. Hence, Oprah's dough. While Clinton may have right on her side with regard to the media, she's also no stranger to power politics which is why she has such appeal. It has nothing to do with her being "ground-breaking" -- that's the bullshit Js rationale for a candidacy -- it has to do with the stregnth and capability she presents. You know that if it comes down to counting pennies in Ohio, Clinton will not let it go. So, Clinton reads Oprah and her money (and the possibility of Michael Jordan and his, LeBron James and his) for the desperation they show in the Obama camp. Needing to push before Iowa, Oprah has put the Js 180 degrees from where the media set him down initially in August 2004. For Clinton this is Power Politics 101. Just right out of Br'er Rabbit: "oh please don't come out for the Js, Oprah Winfrey, Michael Jordan, LeBron James, please don't." Meanwhile, she's laughing her ass off because she knows that nothing will destroy the Js's rice-paper candidacy worse than a tableau of wealthy and famous Black people backing him (he's post-racial, remember?). Meanwhile, she's beating the crap out of the Js among Black Democrats -- 9 points and rising. Power Politics 102. Respect the intelligence of your best identifiable voting bloc.
And this is the problem with the whole Js candidacy. It was created by and given to him by the MSM. He's never had to learn Power Politics. The last time he needed that knowledge, Bobby Rush crushed him by 35 points. Clinton could teach a master-class in it. Just look at how she's toyed with JohnnyCrippleHands like a cat with a wounded mouse. Estonia. Fact-finding mission with Walnuts, Fancy-Boy Lindsay and a few other Senators. Walnuts, who is quite possibly the stupidest person in big-time politics today (I'd take W and lay 20 IQ points and know I had the best of it), does his usual macho number with the media around and challenges Clinton to a vodka-shots contest. I suppose he had convinced himself that she was some kind of blue-nose scold and would do something to alienate herself further with men. How much was Clinton, a pure party-animal (cf. Dan Lasater), loving this? Call. She drinks Walnuts under the table and in the press conference the next day, Walnuts denies the contest took place, rails against the evils of vice and ends up looking himself like a scold no American man worth his salt would want anything to do with.
I'm probably the only lefty blogger who loves what Rove did to McCain in South Carolina in 2000. What's the matter? I surely didn't have a dog in that fight and if anyone deserved it, Walnuts did. He really is (was) a disgrace.
Andrew Sullivan, a HUGE Walnuts and Js fan, is absolutely right on one thing. It ain't the 60s, anymore. In the contemporary version of the song -- DEATH-VALLEY-DAYS-DYLAN-DOES-CHICAGO: HILLARY, OPRAH AND THE JACK OF SPADES --the wife ends up as president and Js ends up on the gallows. Bring in the hanging judge, please.
Kelso's Nuts love you
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
wow, kelso. great post.
i'm only guessing here, but it seems that your "exile" has done for you what similar circumstances had done for so many writers, artists and thinkers before you: it has given you some new, and helped you refine some old, perspectives on "life at home" and it has allowed you new kind of freedom to express them.
an interesting article in the times today makes the important distinction that while oprah clearly has had the power to push a book up the bestseller list, this may not translate well into the political realm. i personally question whether it may end up hurting oprah more than it helps the candidate.
as the article notes, one thing that oprah "teaches" her "followers" to do is think for themselves.
AXN:
Thanks. That's quite a compliment. I probably have more in common with the narrator (an itinterant tradesman) of Billy Bragg's "Wishing The Days Away" ("A man can spend a lot of time/wondering what was on Jack Ruby's mind") than I do with Bunuel, Hemingway or Josephine Baker!
I think this experience has been difficult enough to force me to trust my shit more and not feel I have to snowball every argument with aggression.
And one certainly gets a different perspective on the USA going native in exile than by not doing so. In fact, that's pretty much how you know an American down here is going to end up paying the shylocks 10% fortnightly and having to sneak out in disgrace under the cover of night -- the degree to which one is open to fitting the culture.
As for Oprah, "teaching" "followers" to "think for themselves," it sure explains the credulity with which "box-cutters" and "Let's Roll" was greeted.
Good analysis, but a lot of game time left.
P--
There isn't really that much time left. Iowa's a little more than one month off and then it's NH, NV and SC followed by all.
Clinton doesn't have to win Iowa. A 3rd or even 4th is fine because she'll breeze through the next three. If she wins Iowa, and it's kind of a 3-way toss-up right now, she's duck soup.
Obama doesn't have any duck soup scenarios. He has to win Iowa and then hope to get lucky. He'll have the press's help as usual but not the people's. As usual.
I'm just glad to have been able to sneak in a few more bets on Clinton for DemNom laying less than -$2.50 because of the Js hype.
You are on fire Kelso-
I knowyou are 'in the loop' but you need to understand Js is just playin the game. You work with hand you are dealt.
some play the cards better than people some play people better than the cards.
I do not know if the stakes have ever been as high and Clionton knows there is a 20% chance for showers and snow in hell.
Dave:
Of course, I know. I don't begrudge the man taking his shot and surely the shot would not be available to him if he weren't possessed of all of the attributes I find so distasteful and dangerous. What's a pity is that he also had a chance to be some of what he pretends to. He's got too big an ego. That's saying something. They all have big egos; it's a job requirement, but his is out-there and he lacks even the minimal ability to contemplate and reflect.
I guess I'm not surprised that he's so close to Joe Lieberman. I find many of the same attributes in Holy Joe, just writ much smaller. It's a sign of some cultural progress that a Black guy and a Jewish guy can be 2x+ big assholes just like Mr Charlie, but given the history of the past couple of centuries I think in politics both cultures carry an extra burden of needing to promote compassion and inclusion. Obama and Lieberman are quite the opposite. That's cool for them. But I get to express my displeasure, si o no?
I agree that the stakes are high and, for every reason I've set forth, I see an Obama presidency in the same terms I see maybe a Romney or Fred Thompson. Not far-right, but religious and right-wing to be sure.
I'm Jewish myself and didn't buy any of the "ground-breaking" bullshit about Lieberman. I saw him for what he was -- a religious right-winger. I'm not buying it this time from Obama. I see in him someone tough to pin down but with tendencies to an ideology I don't like. Or at the very best, Obama has no ideology but owes so much to the Washington insiders and their narrative that he'll be nothing but trouble. Color irrelevant. Funny how much I match up with the mainstream African-American voter.
It's something of a comfort that Clinton's in this thing. I disagree with her on at least 50% of things but I respect her strength. Obama's weakness terrifies me.
Oh, I'd say the chances for the freezing rain and snow in Hell scenario are about 2-1 against. Thirty-three-and-one-third-%
The only event that will stop Clinton from obtaining the Democratic nomination is a self-destructing, self-immolating act of spontaneous combustion, like Howard Dean's public descent into a psychotic fury.
As long as Hillary maintains a facade of mannerliness, decorum and earnestness, the nomination is in the bag. Thus, most weighings and ponderings over her potential vulnerability are little more than schadenfreude.
No_slappz:
Thanks for the thoughtful comment. I disagree with you on Dean. I had a worm's-eye-view of that because his SoCal bundler is a good friend of mine. They were then where Obama is now. They had a tremendous stack of money but with only one possible path-to-victory and the first step was a WIN in Iowa. They knew very well that Kerry was the legit favorite in the race and needed a tail-wind of wins in IA and NH. Once Iowa was lost, Dean was through. You call it "psychotic fury". I call it "frustration and disappointment" which in a competitive guy like Dean is no trivial thing.
Iowa 2004 was one draw from a random bag. Dean did not HAVE to lose it. I read a fascinating piece on the Op-Ed page of the WSJ in October of 2004 by Dorothy Rabinowitz. She said as a conservative she was relieved that she dodged a huge bullet in Iowa because she knew that Dean would not campaign as weakly as Kerry had been and Bush would have had a very hard time beating Dean heads-up.
That's interesting but not germane really to '08. I don't do weighings and ponderings. I move money if I feel I have an edge, i.e., my risk-weighted expected return is past a certain threshold. I made a decent sized bet on Bush -170 over Kerry and survived it despite some tense moments. I voted for Kerry, however, and knew that I'd personally have problems in a second Bush term. So, it was.
here's another article on obama's "gen-X" strategy.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071203/chaudhry
i know i'm kind of taking this too personally, but i continue to maintain that the 'boomer' vs. 'x-er' strategy is entirely a false dichotomy. for example, i was born in 1960, and the article says that the beginning of the 'x-er' generation starts in 1961. i basically read that as meaning that i am neither boomer nor x-er and therefore politically of little interest. however, the fact is that 1960 was the height of the baby boom in terms of number of births that year. anyway, my point being that while obama bashes the boomers for being 'stuck' in the 1960's and vietnam and civil rights and praises the tech-savvy x-ers, he's in fact serving to deepen an already painful societal divide. why be a divider? and the boomers don't vote? give me a break.
rant over (for now).
AXN:
Don't give up the rant. It's very important. The internet is such big part of everyone's life that these "generational divides" are silly. Had Obama NOT tried to use it as a wedge and had NOT done it so inartfully, we wouldn't be having this conversation. I've feel comfortable with 20-somethings, 40-somethngs, and 60-somethings as peers. I'm not unique. I'm average.
I liked the Nation piece for it's Obama-skepticism but they don't go far enough. No one but Uncle Kelso does. Why can't Chaudry just state the obvious? By making an anti-60's message his wedge issue, he is running against civil liberties and civil rights and for war, status-quo and reaction where necessary. I'm sorry, but if you are actively rejecting "hippies" you are actively affirming Dow Chemical. That may be the "old-fashioned" way of thinking but "old-fashioned" doesn't mean "wrong". He never says McNamara or -- god forbid -- Powell was wrong. But he can't trash the student left of the 1960s and 1970s enough.
There's a very simple question for the Js to answer thoroughly and convincingly if he expects anyone to buy what he's peddling: WHAT'S SO FUNNY ABOUT PEACE, LOVE AND UNDERSTANDING?
He has never explained what WAS funny nor has he embraced the idea. That's a political conservative.
He's entitled to be anything he wants to be. As Dan Jenkins put it in SEMI-TOUGH, Obama can "get a big sombrero and call himself a Mexican" if he likes.
Obama is free to campaign any way he likes. Bush's "compassionate conservative" okey-doke seems to be Obama's model. Fine. No objections. I do object, however, to those who can see what's going on soft-pedalling it. What's the secret? He's about God. He's anti-gay. He's anti-union and pro-death penalty. He's instrumentally pro-war after having been talk-talk anti-war. He doesn't come out an call himself a right-winger but a rose...
It's not all that hard for me to see and I don't see fascists hiding around every corner the way the Nation writers do. I'll even bet I'm MORE of a free-marketeer than Obama is. I still say the guy belongs in the Republican party.
This is what I mean by going to the root of reality. No cave for you, man. You're looking at the tree and painting your own damn picture.
DAVE:
I've been mulling over the cards v. person playing ability conceit as applied to politics. I assume you had NLHE in mind. Broadly speaking, those are two styles of play. PLO is very much a CARD game. I don't think either is terribly analogous to politics, although a campaign could fit the tournament metaphor.
As far as that goes, Hillary Clinton would be considered to play the cards extremely well yet is only fair at playing the people. Obama is wretched at both, probably because of both the ego and inexperience.
I think the card game that mirrors politics best is Hollywood. A sheet has three columns of games, each of which begin in a staggered fashion. The play of Gin does have elements of luck, just as there are exogenous variables to politics, but Gin is more like chess than like poker. Each move affects all subsequent moves and each presents a multiplicity of options. It is possible for the worse player to win a hand off of the better player but it is extraordinarily unlikely for the worse player to win a column and impossible for the worse player to win the sheet.
The 10-card hand dealt to Js was a lay-down. Instead of knocking with 10 and getting on in the first game, though, Obama tried to show off and play for out. Newbie mistake in Hollywood Gin or in politics. By letting Hillary look at more than 4 cards, he let her into game and once in she out-played him, just as she figured to do.
So, to continue the metaphor what, for Js, would constitute knocking? In this context, it would be making a run just to say "hello" but instead of aggressing with his message, playing it very cool -- staying positive all the way. He introduces himself to the public, preserves his message for next time, and earns a few favors. The benefit of being 46 years old is that if Clinton wins and wins again, he's only 54 when his turn comes up again.
Besides, his message such as it is lends itself to a positive campaign. It's idiotic to run a negative campaign with the "audacity of hope" as your theme. Dean in 2004 and Edwards this year had themes that lent themselves to aggressive campaigning. Obama's being an asshole with his positive message just didn't work at all. It pissed Clinton off but wasn't strong enough to do any damage.
This should have been a learning experience for him. But as he already KNOWS EVERYTHING why should he bother with irrelevancies like experience? Because his loss to Bobby Rush ought to have shown him that a little experience isn't a bad thing. He believed his own hype. Which made him a total fucking SHOW but it augurs no good for his future. If I were Obama I'd consider switching to the Republican Party and either getting into touch with his aggressive side or else settling into a nice role as POST-RACIAL, BOOTSTRAPS, PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY SCOLD. Always room for that.
SuziRiot:
Did I ever discuss the parable of the cave with you? I know I discussed it with some blogger recently. Well, at any rate it's always nice to see a parable of the cave reference in the comments. It's a very useful metaphor -- has a zillion applications including in gambling and finance.
No, Kelso, we did not have that discussion. Fairlane and I did have a brief exchange extolling the usefulness of Sartre in blogging.
I don't know what my deal is with bringing the philosophy recently. Must be all this mopey introspection.
Anyway, yes the parable cave is a very useful metaphor, although often misapplied.
Sartre useful for everything, I think, best of all as an inocluation when you expect to be around a lot of ASQUEROSOS (you speak Spanish, right? So you get what I mean).
Looking at the tree and painting my own picture is right-on. It's part of the search for reality but everything I write or anyone writes is still ipso facto impressionistic. Get a whole bunch of bloggers TOGETHER and you can approximate reality or approach "normality." Probabilists call this THE CENTRAL LIMIT THEOREM. Economists have other names for it. And knowing about this stuff is why I say I'm a better free-marketeer than Obama is. I don't mean I want to create de facto slavery through unregulated labor policy! Ha!
the 'parable of the cave' is from plato's 'republic.' although, it's likely that sartre discussed it in 'existentialism and humanism' ... but i'm not 100% sure.
or perhaps you were thinking of 'the myth of sisyphus' by albert camus ...
AXN:
Go back and read the thread. Sartre was raised apart from the parable of the cave, but no one makes lemonade out of lemons like you: noyce on camus's "the myth of sisyphys"
Anita, I must have been confusing in my comment. i am aware that the parable of the cave is the work of plato. i try not to look like an ignorant dope, but i don't believe in sourcing all of my references. either people know it or they don't and i don't think it much matters. i'll explain myself anyways, though, because i don't like being confusing.
in my comment, i was referring to a post on my blog awhile back in which i referenced "no exit" by sartre. the whole hell is other people thing. fairlane over at jonestown and i agreed that sartre's work seems to work well for reference in blogging to make a point. and now i'm referencing plato. right now i'm working on a post on my blog referencing Marcuse's "One Dimensional Man" as part of a rant on the illusion of democracy and personal freedom in the romanticized myth of American history. I just seem to be on a philosophy kick.
ahhh ... i see now. thanks for setting me straight kelso and suzi ... !
;)
SuziRiot:
Ten cuidado con el Senor Herbert.
Dete cuenta que paso cuando Malcolm X volvio a Marcuse de nuevo!
Post a Comment