I know that despite hammering this subject ad nauseum, I probably have two or three regulars who agree with me on Barack Obama. He is nauseating, though, not me.
1) HIS STORY IS SO INSPIRING. Maybe it is; maybe it isn't. Maybe every one of your stories are more inspiring than his is. How many of you were born to a wealthy diplomat father and a mother whose roots go back to the Mayflower? I'd say given that pedigree Obama is as elitist as any politician outside of the Kennedys, Rockefellers or Bushes. Inspiring my ass. If any one us had gotten Obama's jump-start on life, we'd have done way better and way more good that this self-important stain has.
2) HE'S GOING TO BRING A NEW TONE TO WASHINGTON AND GET PAST THE PARTISAN BICKERING. Where did we hear that one before? Oh, yeah. That was one of George W. Bush's refrains during the 2000 campaign.
3) HE'S A POST-RACIAL, POST-PARTISAN CANDIDATE. No. He's Oprah's black boy and has a default position of caving in to any Republican opposition.
4) HE'S AGAINST THE WAR IN IRAQ? No. He made one half-assed remark to a reporter about it in 2003. His Iraq withdrawal plan falls well short of Clinton's and Edwards', to say nothing of Richardson's, Dodd's, Paul's and Kucinich's. Moreover, Joe Lieberman and Colin Powell are his main mentors.
5) HE'S IN FAVOR OF GAY RIGHTS. Give me a fucking break.
6) HE'S MORE "LIBERAL" THAN HILLARY CLINTON IS Prove it. He isn't.
I've had my say on this putz. He's a right-wing religious freak, but don't take my word for it, don't take Katha Pollitt's (THE NATION) or David Sirota's word (SIROTA BLOG). Those writers are what another Obama fan, Joe Klein, would call "loony liberals." Take a true conservative's view on it. Christopher Caldwell of the WEEKLY STANDARD writing in the FINANCIAL TIMES:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c732e952-affa-11dc-b874-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1
Why O Why, have I been forced to do this over and over again? There are none so blind as those who will not see. For the 10 trillionth time, close your eyes and imagine Obama with White Skin. Then, think about his views. And on the myriad of subjects on which he should have views --e.g., the economy, foreign affairs -- but is too lazy to bother with. Now, how inspiring is he? Why is he preferrable to Clinton or Edwards or Richardson or Dodd or Kucinich or Biden or Romney?
If Obama's still your guy, mazel tov. I, for one, like my Democrats to be Democrats. There's nothing wrong with supporting Obama but know that you are supporting the Republican god-squadder in the race. And be proud of it. No weasel words about Clinton being a corporatist. Barack Obama is Alan Keyes. If that's your bag, again, be proud of it. You have every right.
Kelso's Nuts love you
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Right on, brother! This may be your best post on Obama yet.
Thanks, SR. I walk a lonely road here, one very few of my fellow-travellers will travel with me. Every satisfied customer counts!
I don't begrudge anyone their choice of candidate. I've merely made my choice(s). In a ideal world, I'd like Dennis Kucinich to be president. Given that no democracy or republic is ideal and no one ever gets all of what he or she wants, I'm settling for Clinton. On the issues, I agree with her 60%, disagree with her 40%, but I like her intelligence, her broad range of knowledge, her toughness, her resiliency and her precision.
Barack Obama is a decent Democratic back-bencher. He's more right-wing than I'd ideally like even as a back bencher but if I can live with Nelson and Rockefeller and Biden and Carper and Feinstein and Landriew and Lincoln and Johnson and Baucus, I can live with Obama as junior Senator from Illinois.
But I refuse to do anything but slam him for his presidential run. He is not a great person as we've seen over and over again. His hyper-religiosity, his jive about "getting beyond partisan politics" which is merely code for being weak in the face of Republican strength, his arrant homophobia, his lack of intellectual curiousity and his temper make him completely unfit to be president.
His Black skin does fuck-all for me. Especially considering that with a decent tan, he and I have the same skin color!
He is also a very poor campaigner. He gets undressed in every debate. He can't stand to be challenged on anything. He can't think on his feet and the thought of Colin Powell as CIA director and Joe Lieberman as National Security Advisor curdles my blood.
I don't mind my liberal brethren and sistren preferring Obama to Clinton because they see her as a corporatist and a hawk. She is. But don't tell me that Obama is not a corporatist and hawk, but worse.
Another heuristic device: David Brooks loves Obama. Doesn't that tell you everything you need to know about Obama?
If you like Obama, for god's sakes, proclaim it loudly. But please make sure to proclaim that you like himn because he's a Christian freak, an Israel expanisionist, a Blue-Dog of the highest order, and very, very unpleasant person who would given the chance destroy the Democratic Party.
No argument here, just an observation and a question. It seems strange to me that Obama is referred to as a "black man." He is one-half black and one-half white. Thus, he can just as accurately be called a "white man." Why is it that any discernable fraction of African "blood" in a human being relegates him to the less-estimable (in white-American eyes) category of "black?"
Post a Comment