Letter to my Obama Mama

Hi Mom,

No doubt you gathered from our last conversation that I am still less than taken with our new national religion. I’ve just never been able to reconcile how the corporate media and the far left could be in such perfect agreement over a presidential candidate. Obviously the pragmatic post-partisan powers-that-be know they can benefit somehow from a president who can manage to be all things to all people.

I do want the Obama presidency to succeed, though. Obviously, if he fails, we all fail. I’ve always been impressed with his intelligence (especially his ability to pronounce “nuclear” correctly), and he does seem to have an abundance of the self-confidence he’ll require. Hopefully his superior “judgment” is, indeed, all he has told us it is. I just wish more people had voted with eyes open and knew the difference between the product and the man. The media is mostly to blame in this regard. Most voters failed to notice the aptitude for lawyerly rhetoric and plausible deniability in the more underhanded tag-team tactics of an Obama/Axelrod/Media Whores campaign that I’ll bet made the Bush/Rove/Media Whores tag-team envious. (Witness the RFK assassination fauxrage where Axelrod was caught red-handed. What? Didn’t hear about it?)

Unlike many of Obama’s fans on the far left who are baffled by all the Clinton appointments (heads exploding) (“this is change?!”), I’m actually encouraged that there are not even more right-leaning appointees among them. Where’s Chicago School economist Goolsbee, for instance, who secretly assured Canada not to take Obama’s anti-NAFTA campaign rhetoric seriously? (By the way, when we speak of “Clinton appointments”, I’m convinced Hillary would have been much less centrist than both Bill and Barack in her choices.)

Thanks for the copy of the New Yorker. I’ve probably never given it more than a casual read, and always found the cartoons perplexing (Irony, they call it…). If this is an attempt to show me there is still unbiased journalism somewhere, it does seem remarkably Kool-Aide free — especially so close after the election, when most publications have gone into full Camelot mode. Who knows, I may even subscribe…

I was impressed with this piece in the Talk of the Town by Steve Coll where he states: (emphasis mine)

“The next Presidency has within its reach at least two generation-spanning causes: the need to jump-start a new energy economy, and, in so doing, help to contain climate change; and the need to enact a plan to provide quality health care to all Americans, and, in so doing, complete the project of social insurance that Roosevelt described in 1935. Each of these projects is urgent, but it is health-care reform that speaks more directly to the economic and human dimensions of the present downturn.

The accumulating failures in the country’s health-care system are a cause of profound weakness in the American economy; unaddressed, this weakness will exacerbate the coming recession and crimp its aftermath. A large number of the country’s housing foreclosures in recent years appear to be related to medical problems and health-care expenses. American businesses often can’t afford to hire as many employees as they would like because of rising health-insurance costs; employees often can’t afford to quit to chase their better-mousetrap dreams because they can’t risk going without coverage. Add to this the system’s moral failings: about twenty-two thousand people die in this country annually because they lack health insurance. That is more than the number of Americans who are murdered in a year.”

I agree with Coll’s assessment of the need for UHC legislation for the health of the economy as well as the health of individuals. This is why I was so alarmed by Obama’s use of right-wing talking points in his “Harry & Louise” negative campaign ads in Ohio and other states primaries, as I expressed in our “family forum” many months ago. (especially in an election when there was so much public support for such FDR solutions). If I may quote myself:

“The irony is that the health care dilemma does affect everyone, for it contributes to the “sickness” of the economy. As someone who is obviously out of my depth discussing such subjects, yet has done a little homework, if Obama is elected, even I can foresee no significant change will occur within the health care system (or maybe that is the best case scenario) — as he has signaled his love of market based solutions, bi-partisanship, etc., and it would appear SS would also be “in-play” and ready to be “fixed” for Wall Street’s investing pleasure.”

Nothing Obama has done has indicated a true commitment to furthering this issue. His stance has fluctuated throughout his career to serve his needs of the moment. When he was running for a state senate seat in a liberal IL district, he was for UHC (kinda like he was with his anti-war stance), but when he was trying to appeal to independents, republicans, and the youth vote who might be frightened by the specter of mandated insurance it seems he did everything he could to insure that real healthcare reform would be off the table. (It also doesn’t help when Dem establishment types like John Kerry are making statements like “UHC is a non-starter”.)

Coll’s piece was written, it appears, before we knew Clinton was being considered for SOS:

“Presidents who help right a wrong of this character are generally immortalized in granite, but to succeed they require a transformation-minded Congress, too. The next Congress will likely be without the active leadership of its great lion of social reform, Ted Kennedy. There is only one senator with the wonky expertise, work habits, and political stature to fill Kennedy’s place: Hillary Clinton. The psychology she would bring to this inheritance would surely be complex, but no health-care-reform bill will pass without her. Lyndon Johnson, also a person of complex psychology, understood this politics of legacy well. At the Medicare signing ceremony, he invited Jimmy Roosevelt, F.D.R.’s eldest son, and the aging Harry Truman, who had pushed hard for health-care reform, to share the glory.”

I keep bad-mouthing the NYT, but Paul Krugman is another person who understood that Clinton was the only candidate (besides Edwards) who had a chance of advancing UHC, considering the resistance from both sides of the isle.

I know you think I’m “obsessed” but obviously issues like caucus reform and campaign finance reform also will not be big priorities in the next congress; so some of us intend to keep “reminding” people about the things they never even heard this election. The manipulations of the DNC and abuse of power by party establishment like Dean, Brazile, and Pelosi, also need to be brought to public attention to avoid these tactics becoming SOP in the Democratic Party. The abuse of the role of Super Delegates, the Rules & Bylaws Committee, and the convention roll call vote to replace the “cigar-smoke-filled-back-room” were all issues that were swept under the rug in the name of promoting a pre-selected “historic” nomination over the will of the majority of Democratic voters.

And then there’s that pesky media — now indulging a few feeble attempts at self-analysis. By the way, I hear their star patient Chris Matthews (AKA Tweety Bird) is considering running in your state for senate in 2010 against Arlen Specter. Do you remember that french film “King of Hearts” where the inmates of the mental ward take over the town?

I’m sure you were surprised to find I’m still on my usual rant out here, but I still feel pretty strongly about some things. Since I express myself pretty badly over the phone, I figured I may as well lay out the basic arguments, so you don’t just think I’ve gone over to the dark side. I still consider myself a liberal Democrat but I’ve lately been stricken by the corruption on both sides of the isle. You’d be surprised how many feel the same about recent events (No, it’s not just my own private delusions, or exposure to Republican propaganda).

Well, there it is…now I won’t have to dread what I might blurt out the next time we speak. You did ask me what I thought about the election, though…

Love, T

P.S. I’m so sorry to hear about Aunt Betty. She’ll be in our thoughts and prayers.

The Democrat’s Cannibalistic Bloodlust

In keeping with my stated mission – namely to relentlessly revisit, relive and re-open the festering wound and mass psychotic episode that was the War for the White House 2008 – I am republishing various of my posts and letters from those memorable times. When the PUMA movement entered national awareness, this article in Slate:

The Madwoman in the BlogosphereThe disturbing rise of the “Hillary Harridan.”By Dahlia LithwickPosted Wednesday, Aug. 20, 2008, at 6:49 PM ET

was typical of the reaction of many “right-thinking” progressive? women. It was also typical of the Obama camp’s strategy to woo disaffected Democrats back into the fold — by insulting them. Boy, she really puts those hags in their place! Here’s a sampling:

“You know her. She’s got wild eyes and rumpled hair. At some point she stopped caring about the stains on her blouse. She’s hurt, angry, rejected, and she’s willing to take the whole damn place down with her. She is Lady Macbeth. She is Jane Eyre’s deranged pyromaniac Bertha Mason. She is Cruella DeVil and the biblical Lilith. She is Snow White’s wicked stepmother, Miss Havisham, and Emily Bronte’s ghostly Catherine Earnshaw. She is the oldest literary type around—the bitter madwoman, hellbent on revenge and willing to act against her own interest to win some respect.”…

“Political campaign coverage is always driven by stereotypes… But the rise of the “Hillary Harridan” is a disturbing development. It unearths a creepy literary type that harms women a lot more than it helps them. The suggestion that irrational, emotional, self-referential women are swinging the election is not a theme any woman should endorse.”…

“But the intriguing new twist is that long after Clinton conceded the primary race to Barack Obama, some of her supporters have willingly embraced this same media image of the irrational madwoman and attached it to themselves.”…

“It was sexist when Chris Matthews called Clinton a she-devil. But in allowing themselves to be portrayed—over and over—as petulant harridans, unable to “heal” from the wounds of the primaries, these Clinton supporters are embracing the same she-devil stereotypes they once claimed to resent.”…

“None of this has anything to do with the legitimate outrage most of us felt about sexism in the coverage of the Clinton campaign.”…

It’s comforting to know that “most of us” can separate the “legitimate outrage” from the other nonsense. Perhaps she’s still recovering from all the righteous indignation as well. Here was my comment at the time:

The Democrat’s Cannibalistic Bloodlust
by men o’ paws
08/26/2008, 9:09 PM #

+2 Reply

The Democrat’s cannibalistic bloodlust is insatiable and must be a source of great joy for Republicans–who are rarely witnessed devouring their own on such a grand scale. Perhaps that’s why they win elections.

It’s sad to hear that “the media’s relentless focus” has been forced to focus on something that does not favor Obama’s agenda. But, it has been his own supporters—so many of them women–who have helped create this phenomena by relentlessly helping the media project these “she-devil stereotypes” onto “Shrillery” and her supporters. These vile women of whom you speak (mostly rank and file Democrats–you know–the type that volunteer, GOTV and such–and a lot more men than you realize) don’t seem to have the right to advocate or oppose whichever candidate they choose without being subject to ridicule and chastisement in the village square.

The rapid proliferation of this “creepy literary type” that terrifies you so is merely the tip of the iceberg and a reflection of the grass-roots movement (not the Astroturf variety) that has spontaneously grown out of the disgust so many feel at the disturbing direction the Democratic Party has taken. It’s not even about Hillary anymore or who she tells them to vote for, or about “disappointment”, “hurt feelings”, sexism, misogyny, or any of “the legitimate outrage that some of us felt”, as you so smugly put it. It’s about saving the Democratic Party from itself.

As for Party Unity…For me Unity went south in South Carolina when I realized how far some will go to inflame racial outrage for political gain, and it really went bye-bye after the mind-bending hysteria caused by a simple historical reference to RFK (Axelrod: busted). The eagerness of the so called “progressive” netroots to join with the Democratic Elite establishment and a compliant corporate media in adopting the vast right wing memes of the ‘90s to purge the Clintons from American politics was an “embarrassment” (just as Gov. Rendell says) and ultimately a failure as we are now witnessing.

The humiliation suffered by Democratic leadership over the past two Presidential contests has compelled them to embrace GOP tactics, and inspired a similar departure from the “reality-based-community”. The DNC’s continuing manipulation of the “reality” of the primary process to select rather than elect one preferred candidate over another has contributed to a rift that will not be healed by empty calls for unity. Many lifelong Democrats with “no where else to go” will do the unthinkable in Nov — not just by voting against an unqualified candidate who will likely lose regardless, but by refusing to endorse the corrupt process which led to the miserable choice our “leaders” have foisted upon us.

When the Democrats blow it once again in Nov, no doubt Hillary and her “vengeful madwomen” will be blamed, but it will be no one’s fault but those who foolishly enabled this shortsighted and suicidal attempt by the Democratic establishment of losers led by Dean/Brazil/Pelosi/Kerry/Dasch­le, et al to install their own selectable yet ultimately unelectable candidate.

I stand corrected on the “unelectable” part. But in an election where a generic Democrat should have won by a landslide, they came darn close to snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, didn’t they? Thank goodness for economic collapse and scary, incompetant “running mates”…Stay tuned for upcoming post: “Sarah, Bill, and Everybody’s Crazy Old Uncle”.

Post Partisanship

This year American politics and the media — OK, most of our mass psychology — went so far over the edge that a door seems to have opened that can’t really be closed. Those who managed to escape with some semblance of sanity have found it neither possible nor desirable to retrace their steps back down that rabbit hole. When my ObamaMama mother tells me I’m “obsessed”;  I say it is just the opposite. If anything, I now feel completely liberated from the obsessive black and white duality, “anything-to-win” mentality of both parties. Sure, it’s a curse, too, as I am now forced to be a post-partisan equal-opportunity observer of hypocrisy. I can no longer go along with everything my team throws out there without questioning it — just because it helps the cause.

A disturbing trend in American politics is the toleration for that special brand of treatment reserved for women – the kind used toward Clinton in the media, by her own Party, and by her own sex (which is especially disturbing) which made sexism and misogyny an acceptable national pastime.

For those who were used to seeing how sexism was utilized to minimize Clinton politically, it was impossible not to notice how the same voices never missed a beat when they joined the chorus to demonize Palin. Unfortunately, the fact that most of my political views are diametrically opposed to Palin’s didn’t make it easier to ignore these tactics that I had been observing for a year. It only confirmed what I already knew: that misogyny and the general ridicule of women has, indeed, become an acceptable political tool, especially on the progressive left, and that it was never just about Clinton, as they always claimed.

Palin was an especially appealing target for vilification because as a woman, it appears, she “should know better” than to be pro-life. The fact that her most venomous attackers were women and feminists who felt compelled to set straight those misguided Hillary holdouts who might “vote with their vaginas”  “against their own better interests” was particularly insulting and patronizing to voters who may have fought for those rights decades ago but saw more important priorities this election.

But simply put: her pick as VP threw the Democratic Party into a panic because they knew she was a force to be reckoned with, and had to be destroyed using any means necessary. She certainly could have, and should have been attacked legitimately for her political views, but she never would have been subjected to the same “witch burning” (just like Hillary was) if she was a man. Imagine for a moment if McCain had picked a man who was a pro-life fundamentalist conservative governor with minimal foreign policy experience, like say Huckabee. Would he have been subjected to the same outrage, ridicule and mass derangement? I don’t think so.

It was just one of many ironies to me that of all the embarrassing behavior I witnessed in the media and in my own party this election, the demonization of Palin seemed the most transparently partisan mass psychotic episode of the entire year. (OK, I forgot the RFK assassination fauxrage) One need look no further than the proud smiles on those shiny new members of the “Party of Tolerance”  displaying their “Palin is a C*NT” tee shirts, to see how irony challenged they have become.

Yes, the thought of her as President scares me as much as any other conservative Republican would, but the concerted effort to assemble or manufacture evidence of her stupidity, incompetence and fanatical right wing agendas, for the most part, had minimal basis in reality. The mad scurrying to “vet” this candidate — more in one month than Obama was subject to in a year — was positively breathtaking.

And so (once again with the irony), I believe I may  be closer than most to what Obama was referring to with those post partisan proclamations. Yes, I really can see how all this partisan bickering is hurting our country.  The pols on both sides compete for their share of the electorate –pander to their respective constituencies, but rarely do anything substantial to change the natural order of things — which benefits their respective corporate benefactors. This is why the “natural order” goes berserk whenever they think someone might come along and actually “change” anything. And, this is why I am naturally suspicious how the corporate media could be in complete agreement with the far left over a presidential candidate. Communist or Corporatist? Obviously the post-partisan Powers-That-Be know they can benefit somehow from having a president who can manage to be all things to all people.

The Party of Cigar Smoke and Super Delegates

I think this has been the most fascinating election (in a really weird, deranged way) that we may ever see, and it will, I hope, be someday objectively analyzed. One of the worst developments was the fear that one must censure political discourse, pull punches, or worry about crossing that nebulous line that was constantly redefined to fit some political end. I decided some time ago I would no longer worry about such constraints.

My problem is not whether I think Obama will be a successful president or not, although I believed, and still do believe, that he was highly under-qualified for the job (6 years in the Senate might have made all the difference). I am glad we will finally get to see what this man who says: “I-am-a-blank-screen-that-people-of-different-political-viewpoints-project-onto…” (or something to that effect) actually wants to do with our country. Although many of us were curious where his personal pendulum would end up pointing, unlike his detractors on the right, who are convinced he is somewhere between Castro and Mao Tse Tung, I was pretty sure all that praise for Reagan and his tendency to equate the partisan bickering “on both sides of the isle”, would eventually land him somewhere rightward of left-center.

This elusiveness, while appealing to many, was what most Clinton supporter’s objected to all along. Who, exactly, is this guy? If one had faith, or your priorities were different, I guess this wasn’t a problem. His policies will likely coincide more with my own than Palin’s, er, I mean McCain’s would have (which one was running for president, again?) but, as you may have gathered, my heart was not filled with inexpressible joy, and there was no dancing in the streets or even in the living room on this historic occasion. I will admit, though, I have been grinning broadly at all the many AA’s I encounter, and they all seem to respond in kind – and I truly am happy for them.

At this point I wish Obama the best, because if he fails, we ALL obviously fail. I am somewhat encouraged so far by the appointments he’s made, and it’s some consolation to hear the heads exploding all over left bloggistan – who were so convinced that his right-ward triangulation (FISA, anyone?) was just doing what a black man had to do to get elected. They were so sure he would instantly transform into Super Socialist the moment he assumed office. The fact that he recognizes Clinton would make a great SOS gives me hope for his “judgment”, which he’s always bragging about, but he is positively befuddling many of his followers who believed he was the “new politics” opposite of all things Clinton. My guess is he will do what he has done his entire life – keep his eye on the prize and do whatever he needs to do in his present environment to reach the next level. Short of running for Emperor of the World, this probably entails doing everything he needs to do to get reelected in 2112.

And, my problem is not that Clinton “lost”, although I am disappointed, because I believe she was the best and most qualified Democrat to run since FDR. Although many of the “shrieking band of holdouts”, also known as the Hillary Harridan, or PUMAs, will likely never again be able to blindly follow the party line wherever it may lead, most of them, are life-long Dems who were and remain left of center liberals.

The real problem for me is that the process was; well — flawed is not a nearly strong enough term. I would have to say it was shamelessly perverted by DNC insiders such as Dean, Brazile, and Pelosi, who put on a front of impartiality, yet abused their positions in the party and in the media to skew “the rules” and public perception of them (such as the role of Super Delegates) to favor the candidate they had pre-selected.

For many of them, like Brazile, their support for Obama (who was in effect running for president before he even began his term in the senate) goes as far back as 2004, when a week after Kerry’s loss she wrote an article titled “The Obama Factor”. Brazile sat on CNN for most of the year professing to be an “uncommitted Super Delegate”. She helped shape the “fairy tale” consensus view of the Clintons as racists, and was never questioned about her own role in creating and manipulating “The Rules” that punished only 2 states out of several that moved their primaries forward. She was instrumental in removing all of FL and MI delegates instead of only the ½ recommended in the party’s bylaws, which help create the perception that Obama was ahead through much of the primary. (It’s interesting to note that the Obama campaign insisted CNN remove from their panels any analysts who were openly biased toward Clinton, such as James Carville and Paul Begala, and they complied.)

In the case of Dean, his manipulations on Obama’s behalf are no less than a betrayal of the trust of the people of the Democratic Party, and of those states that spent millions of dollars believing their primaries were being conducted with the Party’s principles of full enfranchisement and Fair Reflection in mind.

Someone recently told me “at least the Democratic nomination isn’t still decided in cigar-smoke-filled-back-rooms.” Well, the manipulation of Super Delegates through $$$, intimidation, and the threat of political extinction has become an effective means for a relatively small group of the party elite to subvert the wishes of the majority of the party’s voters. Others ways are subverting “the Rules” at the RBC meeting to steal delegates from one candidate and give them to another, and using arm twisting and threats to impose the appearance of unity “Tom Delay style” at the convention — not just on the SDs but on committed delegates who were sworn to vote as their constituencies had voted.

Not many people are aware that the actual pledged delegate count (taken in their motel rooms before the phony floor vote roll call display of unity) only separated the candidates by 17 or less delegates. Even after months of voter suppression from a media which falsely portrayed the nomination as already decided, in the end neither candidate had the pledged delegates required. It was only the Super Delegates — who were bribed, intimidated, and threatened with political annihilation if they did not conform to the “historic” nomination planned — who would have been able to swing the election either way at the convention.

Hillary recognized this tidal wave of group-think for what it was, and probably wisely, handed the nomination over without a fight. Some think she jeopardized Obama’s chances by “holding out” for so long. I believe allowing the primary (such as it was), to play out, actually helped Obama in the end, because he was inoculated to the many revelations (no, not dirty tricks) about his past associations, etc., which — once exposed — were then considered done with, and rarely revisited.

Now that the election is over, some will say it’s time to get over it and move on. Well, some of us plan to do everything in our power to insure that the worst offenses of the primary are not just swept under the rug and forgotten. Considering the outcome, issues like caucus reform and campaign finance reform aren’t likely to be popular subjects in this congress, so someone needs to remind them that this was more than just a contentious election where some people’s feelings got hurt. This is about the future of the Democratic Party and whether it will be the Party of the “back room deal”, or the party that respects and reflects the wishes of its voters.

Dig a Pony

Lennon/McCartney

I dig a pony
Well you can celebrate anything you want
Well you can celebrate anything you want
Ooh.
I do a road hog
Well you can penetrate any place you go
Yes you can penetrate any place you go
I told you so, all I want is you.
Everything has got to be just like you want it to
Because–

I pick a moon dog
Well you can radiate everything you are
Yes you can radiate everything you are–
Ooh.

I roll a stoney
Well you can imitate everyone you know
Yes you can imitate everyone you know
I told you so, all I want is you.
Everything has got to be just like you want it to
Because–

I feel the wind blow
Well you can indicate anything you see
Yes you can indicate anything you see–
Ooh.

I dug a lorry
Well you can syndicate any boat you row
Yes you can syndicate any boat you row
I told you so, all I want is you.
Everything has got to be just like you want it to
Because—

…Hey, I don’t know, makes about as much sense as Barack Obama: POTUS.

I think the “syndicate any boat you row” line describes Obama’s political philosophy pretty well, though…and oh yeah — I TOLD YOU SO! Ponies…

In some ways I’m glad I’ll never know whether John Lennon would have been a Kool-Aide drinker. Some months ago my brother told me (in between telling me how the Big Dawg had lost his sanity) that Obama made him think of that song Imagine. I told him Lennon’s socialist utopia anthem was the last thing that Obama reminded me of. I always thought my big brother was a very intelligent person. I see a lot of things differently now…

When You Assume, You make an Ass of U and…well, Mostly You…

Case in point: via the Christian Science Monitor. “The Obama of Brazil”

“Like Barack Obama, Brazil’s president rose to power from poverty and the political left. But during six years in office, he has ruled from the center, tapping Brazil’s market strengths, earning him world respect. When the two men finally meet, it may be President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva – or “Lula” – who teaches Mr. Obama a thing or two.”

Oh, great! This happens every time I think I can finally get back to doing what I normally would do in my spare time…you know: trying to figure out just how many different intervallic patterns can be constructed using an 8-note symmetrical diminished scale. My favorite, of course, is major 7ths by minor 3rds, inverting every other repetition! Yeah…cool huh!…What? …and what do you do when you’re not pounding your fingers into bleeding stumps of hamburger on some dumb-ass computer keyboard?

Anyway, this is what I’m talking about: “Like Barack Obama, Brazil’s president rose to power from poverty…” O.K. Stop right there!

See, this is exactly why I no longer feel any sense of pretension about sharing my own humble, rank-amateur opinions about politics. I’m guessing that at least one of these folks on the “Monitor’s Editorial Board” spent some time in some journalism school somewhere, yet not one of them will ever spend one instant of their collective lives questioning whether Obama actually did grow up in poverty. It’s an assumption.

And, where did they get this idea? Oh yeah, that’s right: like everything else they know about Teh Precious — he told them so! The only evidence they have for this assumption, in fact, seems to be Obama’s own assertion that he and his single-mom mother once recieved food stamps — a tale he’s encouraged in the usual unquestioned auto-biographical manner. But it was exactly what they wanted to hear and it fits the narrative they are all a-tingle to tell, so what the hey – fuck research…

Obama and Michelle pushed the food stamp angle when he was being accused of being elitist, and it obviously worked to the extreme in some cases. He once told an interviewer: “I had to reconcile a lot of different threads growing up—race, class,” he told me. “For example, I was going to a fancy prep school, and my mother was on food stamps while she was getting her Ph.D.”

Though this is a fairly flimsy “I am not an elitist” argument, in some ways I can’t even blame him when this turns out to be another case of “I-serve-as-a-blank- screen-on-which-people-of-vastly-different-political-stripes-project-their-own-views”, and the CSM “Editorial Board” extrapolates poor Barry-O (barrio?) all the way to some mythical inner-city Hawaiian Hood .

Obama’s observation is relevant to the entire first sentence of the CSM article: “…Like Barack Obama, Brazil’s president rose to power from poverty and the political left”.

Define “left”…

Well, how could Barry be anything but a lefty, coming from that downtrodden, impoverished background, and all. (And, what’s Ayers excuse?) But, it’s obviously safe at long last to call him that, even if there is little proof that his left- leanings were more than body-surfing the wave of least resistance on a self-serving joyride to be King of the Known Universe…er, I mean, the U.S. presidency. But then again, maybe Left Blogistan was right that he was just sike’n everybody out with all the triangulation crap. (Unlike that fucking DLC Republican Clinton!)

But I ask you — without going into endless speculation of whether the real Barack Obama is Communist or Corporatist — could Lula really “teach [Barack] a thing or two about governing from the center”?

Hmm…and just which post-partisan Democratic Primary were you watching, exactly?

I Bid You Fondue

Feel free to laugh — but as a free citizen who still, as far as I know, has the right to speak and think freely; until Obama establishes his own version of the Ministry of Love I see no reason I must, in principle, accept  the legitimacy of his presidency. Unlike Bill & Bernardine, I do not advocate an overthrow of the US government, so I think this assertion is in no way subversive — unless the first amendment stands on shakier ground than I thought.

This is not to detract from the pride and self-congratulation, however misplaced, that many may feel for this historic accomplishment. Much of the circumstance that leads me to this conclusion was likely beyond Obama’s control (I never get enough of the old plausible deniability), and perhaps he did merely play the cards he was dealt more shrewdly (all of them Aces from the bottom of the deck). I would be thrilled beyond words that we had just elected the first black president (since WJC, of course) if the process — for which the DNC is the main culprit — had not been so hopelessly flawed throughout.

But what a relief it must be for some progressive bloggers, now that the election is finally over! It was an unpopular enough position (online at least) supporting Hillary (the stand-in Republican), but to further jeopardize one’s progressive credentials by supporting an actual Repug, or by advocating a protest vote was obviously quite the leap for most. I myself have no such credentials or reputation to jeopardize, so the choice was never all that difficult: Nobama — no way, no how.

And yet, after that infamous day in Denver, I will confess to some feelings of abandonment when a few of my favorite Obama critics recovered their “reason”, battled their conflicted Democratic consciences, or unceremoniously disappeared:

Vast Left –Atheist, esteemed originator of the WORM game, and other trenchant commentary, wouldn’t return my calls for days after the primary ended. Claims he was on hiatus to deal with “RL”. Comes back occasionally to endorse Obama; then un-endorse him. I just had to break it off. I might be willing to give him another chance…maybe we could still be friends…

Lambert “tepid Obama supporter” Strether: Corrente was one of the few islands of sanity in a blogisphere of derangement during the primary.  “Why does Barack Obama want my friend to keep bleeding into her shoes” is an example of why Lambert was  a must read for months.  After the Denver Debacle  he seemed to develop an obsession with his vegetable garden, and academic discussions about the need for a more tolerant PB 2.0  seemed a bit hypocritical when he banned folks like miq2xu for discussing Obama’s connections to Bill Ayers . Yet Mandos remained.

Talk Left’s BTD/Big Tent Democrat: Not sure why he’s  on this list as he  was actually an Obama supporter  (for cynical, strategic reasons, apparently), but the discussion was always pretty Clinton friendly. He correctly predicted that the media would continue their collective reach-around through the general election.  Because most of his posts were critical of the Obama campaign’s divisive tactics (ie: he strongly advocated FL/MI re-votes), and his following seemed to consist mainly of Hillary supporters, he often had to remind people that he was not. I wandered off  long ago, (went back a few times to watch Jeralyn jump the shark) but still respect him as a gentleman who can hold his Kool-Aide on a date with the opposite sects.

eriposte at Left Coaster:  An early proponent of the Reality Based Community, provided some of the most painstakingly documented posts advocating Clinton’s candidacy. As far as I know, he disappeared completely after the primary. I really can’t blame him for taking a break, though, he was a very generous and prolific poster throughout the primary.

Arthur Silbur — No bone to pick, here. I was just wondering if he’s alright after this last ominous post.

Seriously, I probably would have lost my sanity during the primary if I hadn’t discovered the few derangement free zones like corrente, and they are  so far out of my league that it is pretty laughable for me to be critiquing them. As far as I was concerned, though, in the GE we were left with only two choices:  Party or Principle.

UPDATE: I’ve been informed that eriposte may be a she. Thanks to the Petulant Clown for the tip and for blessing my blog with his presence.

ARTHER SILBER IS RISEN — momentarily, at least — from whatever is ailing him.  Please go at once to Once Upon a Time… and throw him a few bucks, he really needs a new computer.

“Ugh! They took my fricking kidney!”

Apologies in advance for my ponderous and annoyingly parenthetical writing style (subliminal man), but just as Bush set the bar so very low for being POTUS,  the  resounding Ass-Hattery infecting every corner of the Media-Sphere has inspired more than a few rank amateurs to attempt to beat back these attacks upon an ever shrinking Reality Based Community.

OTOH, the recent plague of ChDS (Change Derangement Syndrome) has provided  a  unique opportunity to discover (through necessity) where intelligent life exists (or not) on our planet, from the bloggosphere to the TV talk shows. (One reason I have so much time on my hands: I canceled cable.) The prevailing notions about high vs low information voter, education vs intelligence, indeed, left vs right, are among the many ironies of our recent travels through the electoral Twilight Zone.

This site will likely spend an inordinate amount of time revisiting and dredging up the events of the Year of Infamy; AKA as the 2008 War for the White House. Frankly, it’s the only way I can rationalize all the time I’ve wasted following this campaign, and all the research, links, and notes I’ve accumulated in my attempts to ferret out any unbiased sources of information. I will admit some of these posts will be little more than an excuse to chronicle my blog surfing habits of the past year, so I expect the word-count/link ratio will be relatively high. It’s possible that everything worth saying about this election has been been said already (and much better than I could), but much of it bears repeating as the most relevant voices were always being sucked down the memory hole of the current media spin cycle. I have a feeling this will be the most analyzed election in our nation’s history. So many unanswered questions…

We also need to make some sense of the psychotic break that seems to have occurred in this country’s collective consciousness. My best guess is that these symptoms are another stage of the the thumb-sucking, fetal-position PTSD trauma we suffered after 9/11. Our latest over-compensating  mood-swing of the pendulum seems to require that the xenophobic blood lust for revenge and flag-waving patriotism that brought you the Iraq war and Bush’s improbable reelection must be redeemed through “hope”, “unity”, “change” and a suitable display of racial tolerance. Cries of “traitor” are replaced by cries of “racist”. The “Daddy Party” is replaced with the “Mommy Party”, and the stage is set for the next cycle of woe.

It seems, also, that the pragmatic post-partisan powers that be (wherever you are) know exactly how to push the right cultural  buttons, and to back the right (or left) candidate that fully exploits (and helps create) these trends. As the dust finally settles on this pathetic landscape, many who once resisted assimilation into our Brave New Obama World will merrilly join the career politicians, paid professionals, and the other Village Idiots on the latest pony parade path their corporate masters have prepared for them. I for one have never been all that big on organized religion.

It was Quite the Coup

As Edward Luttwak remarks in Coup d’État: A Practical Handbook: A coup consists of the infiltration of a small, but critical, segment of the state apparatus, which is then used to displace the government from its control of the remainder. In this sense, the use of either military or another organized force is not the defining feature of a coup d’état. [wikipedia]

In the end result, there is little difference between Bush’s hi-jacking of the 2000 election and the DNC fixing of the 2008 Democratic primary to install a nominee that was preselected by party leadership. It is only a matter of at which stage the election process was compromised. Just because political power will be assumed in January; it cannot be assumed that this power has been legitimized democratically. In the eyes of those who witnessed the horrors of the Democratic primary with eyes wide open, the legitimacy of an Obama presidency may be impossible to reconcile, and he will therefore always be PINO (president in name only) to them.

Even if the general election was decided fairly, many of the circumstances which led to Obama’s Denver Coronation were highly suspect. There is ample evidence that Camp Obama used a variety of “organizational” tactics to disrupt caucuses, and also engaged in outright voter fraud. The DNC helped guarantee his nomination by ignoring their own rules of fair reflection at the Denver RBC meeting, and later at the convention roll-call vote. Because the pledged delegate count was always too close to decide the outcome, the manipulation of Super Delegates, and even “pledged” delegates, was a deciding factor right up to the scripted roll call at the Denver convention; a vote which – even though Party Unity was being broadcast publicly – could have gone either way if strong-arm tactics and intimidation had not been imposed to insure conformity.

Through the “infiltration of a small, but critical, segment of the [party] apparatus” (in this case the privately run DNC) Obama surrogates, pretending to be neutral, betrayed their party’s trust by tailoring the process each step of the way to benefit their own candidate and eliminate Clinton. The coup-like quality of Obama’s ascendancy has not escaped the notice of some, even as the general consensus chooses to be distracted by shiny, Unifying objects, and the mythology created by a fawning corporate media. McCain and the Bush administration surely were aware of improprieties, but never said a word because it was not their fight and did not serve there purposes.

Many Democrats chose to be blissfully unaware of such things as caucus fraud and the disenfranchisement of just two of the several states that broke “the rules” by moving their their primary forward. DNC machinations, such as the definitional evolution of the duties of Super Delegates, went unnoticed, and charges of media bias were smugly dismissed whenever the current narrative worked to the advantage of a voter’s preferred candidate.

Because the DNC is considered a private entity, their caucuses do not come under the same laws as the general election, and the responsibility of “policing” voter fraud is solely in the hands of the party leadership. But, since the party leadership saw no advantage in pursuing the countless complaints of violations and voter intimidation by the Obama campaign during the chaos of the Texas caucuses (and a pattern of caucus hijinx going back to Iowa) they looked the other way, and the media was more than happy to join them.

Just because we live in a Democracy, and Obama is now our president elect, this does not necessarily make Obama our democratically elected president. Just because no one has challenged the legality of the DNC breach of faith that enabled Obama’s nomination, doesn’t mean the Party’s stated charter was not violated and the process was not fatally flawed. Even though the DNC is for legal purposes a private organization, their nomination process was still, in effect, a sham and a fraud perpetrated on the American public and those states that threw away millions of dollars on primaries, not realizing the deck was stacked to favor one preordained candidate over another.

If the process was flawed, the ultimate result – for those who still value democratic principles – must also be flawed, and the nomination cannot be considered legitimate. Therefore, this DNC “coup once-removed” continues on its historic journey, and even if the general election is squeaky clean, we now have a leader who is, like Bush was in the eyes of many, PINO. And, if he is reelected in 4 years, he will be considered PINO still. Think about it. The United States has not had a legitimate president so far this century, and now we may not have another until the year 2016.