Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiDisplaying the startling prescience and unconventional insights that have long been the hallmark of his magazine, The New Republic's Jonathan Chait wrote on June 30:
The best aspect of a McCain presidency is that, while it would probably follow the policies of George W. Bush, it would put an end to the politics of Karl Rove . . . . In Bush's Washington, critics are enemies to be dismissed rather than engaged. A McCain presidency would promise to dismantle the whole Rovian method that has torn open such a deep wound in the national psyche.
From The New York Times Editorial Page, yesterday:
On July 3, news reports said Senator John McCain, worried that he might lose the election before it truly started, opened his doors to disciples of Karl Rove from the 2004 campaign and the Bush White House. Less than a month later, the results are on full display. The candidate who started out talking about high-minded, civil debate has wholeheartedly adopted Mr. Rove's low-minded and uncivil playbook.
From The New York Times today:
After spending much of the summer searching for an effective line of attack against Senator Barack Obama, Senator John McCain is beginning a newly aggressive campaign to define Mr. Obama as arrogant, out of touch and unprepared for the presidency. . . .
Mr. McCain's campaign is now under the leadership of members of President Bush's re-election campaign, including Steve Schmidt, the czar of the Bush war room that relentlessly painted his opponent, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, as effete, elite, and equivocal through a daily blitz of sound bites and Web videos that were carefully coordinated with Mr. Bush's television advertisements.
The run of attacks against Mr. Obama over the last couple of weeks have been strikingly reminiscent of that drive, including the Bush team's tactics of seeking to make campaigns referendums on its opponents -- not a choice between two candidates -- and attacking the opponent's perceived strengths head-on.
There's obviously nothing surprising about the McCain campaign's reliance on the standard, personality-based attacks that the GOP uses every election year. It's long been obvious to everyone outside of The TNR Circle that McCain's only prospect for winning would be to move the election away from debates over issues (where his positions are widely rejected by the public) and instead demonize Barack Obama as an effete, elitist, effeminate, far Leftist, terrorist-loving radical, and it was equally obvious that McCain -- "drooling for power like a fruit bat with rabies," as Matt Taibbi put it in November, 2006 -- would eagerly employ those Rovian tactics. That may be a surprise to long-time Beltway McCain worshipers such as Chait and The Washington Post's David Ignatitus (who today longed for McCain's "healing gift," "this fiercely independent man," and "not the heroism but the humility"), but not to anyone else.
What is far more notable than McCain's now almost-complete reliance on Rovian demonization themes is how obediently the establishment media has been spouting and disseminating them. Five weeks ago, on June 23, Karl Rove appeared at a breakfast with Republican insiders at the Capitol Hill Club, mocked Obama as "the guy at the country club with the beautiful date, holding a martini and a cigarette that stands against the wall and makes snide comments about everyone who passes by," and labeled him "cooly arrogant." Ever since, that Obama is "arrogant" -- and the related sin: "presumptuous" -- has become standard, mandated media script.
It's now literally difficult to find a discussion of Obama in the establishment press that isn't based on this personality-based theme -- with media stars either expressing the opinion themselves or repeating it as a McCain talking point. Last night, CNN's Campbell Brown, hosting Anderson Cooper's show, framed the show this way:
But is Obama vulnerable? Is he arrogant? . . . David, the McCain campaign, Republicans, they are consistently playing up this notion that Obama is presumptuous, arrogant. Can they stick him with this label?
Here's the front page of Politico today:
This is exactly what happens every single election cycle. The Right spews some petty, personality-based attack, and the chirping media birds then mindlessly repeat it until it's lodged into our discourse as accepted fact. That's the media strategy on which the Right is relying to win the election this year again -- dictating the songs sung by the vapid, chirping press birds -- even as they petulantly and incessantly complain that the same media stars who serve this strategy are stacked against them. Yesterday's, National Review's Rich Lowry posted what he called "musings from a shrewd friend" about a Dana Milbank column in yesterday's Washington Post that repeated every last "Obama-is-arrogant" cliché ("there are signs that the Obama campaign's arrogance has begun to anger reporters"). Lowry's "shrewd" friend:
[Obama's] showing hubris and contempt for the rest of us in how he considers America fundamentally broken and he's the solution. Messianism is usually a quality you don't want in a president. This was always the soft underbelly of his candidacy. They've gotten too caught up in their own story. What always does in a celebrity? Overexposure. The question now is whether Dana Milbank is the bird leaving the wire and every other bird in the press follows him or not. If this narrative sets in, Obama might have to move up his VP announcement to change the story.
Actually, Milbank wasn't pioneering anything. He was just doing what Beltway reporters do -- repeating what he's been hearing as standard conventional Beltway media wisdom handed down from Rovian/McCain operatives: Obama is an arrogant, presumptuous elitist. The birds who led the flock are Karl Rove, Steve Schmidt and comrades. Milbank was just one of the many birds "leaving the wire" and following along.
After elections are completed and the GOP wins, the establishment media loves to look back and admit what they did -- only to do it over and over. During the 2004 election, The New York Times' Adam Nagourney pathetically granted anonymity to Bush campaign operatives -- in a front-page NYT article -- to label John Edwards "The Breck Girl" and to say that John Kerry "looks French." That's how the NYT's premiere political reporter used a grant of anonymity. In 2007 -- in the midst of the media's pathological obsession with John Edwards' haircuts -- Nagourney wrote a partial mea culpa with this bleedingly obvious insight:
The tale of John Edwards' $400 haircuts may have ended -- or at least his campaign hopes it ended -- when Mr. Edwards told Iowans on Friday that he was embarrassed by the episode. It arguably began four years ago this weekend with a story in The New York Times about the White House's strategy for dealing with prospective Democratic challengers to President Bush.
In the last paragraph of that story, which I wrote with a colleague, Richard W. Stevenson, an unnamed "Bush associate" was quoted as referring to Mr. Edwards as "the Breck Girl of politics." Another Bush adviser, again unnamed, was quoted as saying of Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, "he looks French."
In both instances, we were attempting to flesh out for readers the White House's plans for discrediting prospective Democratic opponents. Both people quoted were at the senior levels of the Bush political operation. And in both cases -- as Mr. Kerry and Mr. Edwards could certainly attest by the end of 2004 election -- the Bush machine had followed through on the plan it laid out 18 months earlier to define the Democrats on Republican terms.
Our story may have had the result of not only previewing what the Bush campaign intended to do, but, by introducing such memorably biting characterizations into the political dialogue, helping it.
Was that a mistake on our part? Perhaps. . . .
As anyone who has interviewed Mr. Edwards, or seen him this year talking with voters about, say, his health care plan, the lightweight label seems unfair, whatever you think of his politics. Voters routinely walk away from such events describing him as a substantial candidate immersed in serious issues.
But last week, as the story of the haircuts reverberated across Iowa and New Hampshire, on to the Drudge Report and finally to both David Letterman and Jay Leno, it was a reminder that, fair or not, this remains a persistent vulnerability for Mr. Edwards.
GOP operatives whisper insipid, petty, snide (though highly coordinated) gossip into the hungry ears of Beltway reporters about the effete, girly, arrogant liberal. Reporters then -- uncritically and endlessly -- repeat what they hear until it completely dominates and overwhelms our political discourse, and then -- "fair or not" -- becomes entrenched narrative.
This is what happens over and over and over. Media stars love to be used this way. The themes never change and neither does the process. Still, it's amazing how fast it travels from Karl Rove's lips and then out of the mouths of the vast bulk of "journalists" covering the presidential race for establishment media outlets. As Gloria Borger of CNN and U.S. News & World Report said: "when Rove speaks, the political class pays attention -- usually with good reason."
The fact that they all say the same thing at once ("up next: Is Obama arrogant?" -- "Obama's arrogance can hurt him" -- "Obama is striking many as arrogant and presumptuous" -- "Obama needs to be careful not to appear too arrogant") doesn't strike any of them as evidence that they're mindless, manipulated spouters of conventional wisdom. They actually think it proves the opposite -- that it's evidence that they are political sophisticates plugged into the important election themes ("Obama is arrogant and presumptuous").
The most inane part of it all is that even as they willingly serve as the GOP's attack amplifiers, they simultaneously and openly fret that they're being unfair to Republicans and too biased towards liberals -- a message that they also get from the same GOP operatives who so transparently write their script. Thus, without any recognition whatsoever of how contradictory they are, the two predominant themes from our establishment journalists are now this: (1) Obama is an arrogant, presumptuous, effete liberal whose arrogance is deeply unattractive, and (2) we in the media are far too enamored of Obama and unwilling to criticize him because we're biased members of the Liberal Media.
UPDATE: While on the subject of The New Republic, it's worth noting that Eric Alterman yesterday conclusively chronicled the latest reckless, purely fictitious "journalism" from Marty Peretz's personal assistant, Jamie Kirchick (also of Commentary and a frequent contributor to Politico). Even with journalistic standards as low as they are -- both at those publications and generally -- it's quite revealing that someone with Kirchick's record is continuously featured by TNR and in similar venues. Just read the mountain of quite representative comments to Kirchick's latest post to see how even many long-time, loyal TNR readers now view that magazine's product.
UPDATE II: In Salon's War Room, Alex Koppelman posts the latest Obama ad, clearly a response to these McCain attacks:
The Obama campaign is far better than the Kerry campaign was at aggressively responding to attacks launched at it, but they are still clearly unwilling (just as Kerry was, and just as Michael Dukakis was) to attack the GOP candidate with similar attack themes. The Obama campaign seems to believe that such attacks are counter-productive.UPDATE III: As is often the case, Bob Somerby has many insightful observations today about how this process is unfolding, with a focus on what he aptly called Dana Milbank's "gruesome performance" in the Post yesterday (h/t Kitt). As sysprog notes: "Closing the circle -- Milbank came to the WaPo, in 1999, from . . . TNR." Beltway circles are always closed so tightly and reliably in that way. If its results weren't so ugly, there would actually be a perverse beauty to how it works.
Glenn Greenwald was previously a constitutional law and civil rights litigator in New York. He is the author of the New York Times Bestselling book "How Would a Patriot Act?," a critique of the Bush administration's use of executive power, released in May 2006. His second book, "A Tragic Legacy", examines the Bush legacy.
© Salon.com
67 Comments so far
Show AllWant to see true understated arrogance, privilege bred in the bone?
Watch the Senate on CSPAN and look for the likes of Cornyn and Kyl. Or Karl Rove, Cheney or the preppy. They are like soft evil babies, empty eyes, bland smooth white faces, manicured hands that have never worked, spotless well cut dry cleaned suits and shirts, they calmly repeat any falsity that will put more money in the hands of their colleagues.
They have a lot of nerve calling anyone arrogant.
Karl Rove knows arrogance. He reeks of arrogance and the political advisor to the king of swagger.
OOps, sorry. I dropped the closing quote marks after ...impulse."
:(
The average, or ordinary, U.S. citizen responds to polls honestly, then contradicts that by the way they vote. The proof? A recent poll, in California, on offshore drilling reflected:
a. People say it is ok, now.
b. The Price of gas.
c. The people are clueless.
d. Contradicted the previous 30 yrs.
e. Most "Californians" moved here.
f. Have no knowledge of "Oil Spill."
g. Should move back to Iowa, Kansas,
New York etc.
The astute reader will note the non-mention of renewables and any strategy for utilizing renewables for minimizing oil dependency. of course, a. through g. reflect a poll and my personal belief.
This does not constitute factual evidence. It proves nothing. Much like the fog of evidence we find pounding on our consciousness from all media we subject ourselves to. Including the articles here, but the comments reduce the articles' validity to, well, frankly, that of the comments.
Personally, I read too much of this "mind-stuffing." The articles posted by Common Dreams are one thing. The comment section is addictive, due to the Freakiness of the human mind and what it is capable of accepting. Thereby demanding your, my, own mental exposure.
However, while political issues continue a repetitive, historical tradition here and elsewhere, that is less than honest, and therefore, loud, obnoxious, demanding, whining, perverse, fantastical, heated, angry, conspiratorial, paranoid, laughable, impossible and, generally, unhealthy as a steady diet, it IS democratic dialogue without peer.
Just remember when you are alone in the voting booth, or it's equivalent, your vote reflects, indeed, demands, your desires for this country and the behavior of your representative to present such demands to the gatherings of other elected people. Their opinions on common issues, and not-so-common, do not mean didley shit. If that false belief were true, an elected person would be a non-entity. But once elected, when informing said elected individual of "the peoples' demands, the elected person responds politely with,
"It is my opinion that this request delivered to me does not meet the...in my opinion...of my opinion...founded historically...on my opinion. I continue to serve you and my constituents to the best of my ability as you elected me and...my opinion. I will be sending you a four color publication printed at taxpayer expense illustrating my hard work and dedication...to my opinion. It will include a request for a nominal contribution of $25.00, but please feel free to grease my palm with something more exotic if you have the impulse.
And so it goes for those who think this means something, that it is a responsible activity. That things will change like the changing of underwear will change people's minds.
The sooner Americans understand the illusion of their existence the closer the sun will be to it's extinction.
Personally, the ageism against McCain has me quite disgusted as much as Obama's using race. I am certainly not pro McCain but I find Obama's defense of his comments about 'looking different' in addressing primarily white audiences quite disinegenuous. I think if Obama were sincere in the least he would admit using his ethnicity as a chip in this game and then stop it. Yes, he looks 'different' if you will, but he is also the pretty candidate and gets away with such comments. I just lose more faith in this guy each day as he injects race quite subtly into his campaign and ignores the major issues (ie. his voting to corrode the fourth ammendment most recently).
Incidentally, claims of elitism do not worry me in the least--elitism is not a derrogatroy term in my books and of course any candidate who is articulate will be accused of this. Obama is rightfully ignoring this accusation because it is an empty claim...it is like saying 'you are too smart', or 'you speak too well'. But the true problem with Obama is in his intelligence in that he has the ability to mask his insults. One person above wrote McCain called Obama "old and out of touch" when Obama said "out of touch". But the person above was correct in her/his interpretation of this comment. Obama is a master of masking his agesist comments and this I am certain frustrates McCain and his camp. So if we are to compare elitism (ie. too educated, too eruydite) versus being out of touch (ie. too old and stodgy), I think we can all agree which comment is really an insult and which is simply a subjective reading which might have negative or positive interpretations depending on the audience subject.
Regardless, the messages from McCain and Obama are similar that in good conscience I could never vote for either. McKinney, Nader and even Barr are far better candidates to consider. Personally, we lost a great candidate with Mike Gravel, but anyone voting for Obama or McCain are voting for the continuation of a genocide in Iraq and Afghanistan and the ongoing Islamophobia that is shaking the USA.
I guess the standards for what makes one an "elitist" have been seriously reduced. Sort of like that other term, "hero."
How is McCain calling Obama "arrogant" any worse than Obama calling McCain "old and out of touch" ??
They're BOTH RIGHT. No problem here.
Anyone who stands up and defends himself against the Rethuglican smear machine is going to be classified as "arrogant." Bullies can't stand this. After all, they're used to being granted just about their every wish by the compliant Dems in Congress. They even make fun of them and call them "sissies" and "pussys."
WHAT has Obama said or done that is "arrogant?" No one is as arrogant as the Republican rat bastards who will tell any lie over and over again in the hopes that the sheeple will accept it as the gospel truth.
The latest ridiculous right-wing clip on TV that puts Obama in the same class as the bimbos Spears and Hilton is too laughable for words. The GOP smear machine is so jealous that everyone likes Obama but not their senile old fart McCain. Eat your hearts out, fascist pigs.
Obama is kind of a man for all seasons. Grew up poor with no father, white parents and grandparents, is at home in a black holy roller down on America church, at home at Harvard and Columbia, with the effete west coast snobs, with gritty Chicago priests and former radical organizers, businessmen, blue collar...and knows how to work the lobbyists and can even schmooze AIPAC a little. He obviously takes the best of what advice these people have to offer and tries understand everyone's postion.
Its fun watching Hannity rotate all these things to make Obama the schmuck of the week, every week. (It was boring when he was stuck on Rev. Wright for weeks and weeks. Poor Geraldo Rivera struggled with it too, but can't BS the way Hannity can.)
matti,
Take a deep breath. I'm sorry I offended you. I meant that Obama did not have a Father growing up (His own Father, not a Step-Father) His father left when he was very young. From what I read, his Grandparents mostly raised him. No, he may not have lived in slums, etc but he did do something with his life and educated himself. MCCain and the media accuse him of being an elitist when they are just as much in the same boat. I am not comfortable with one of the things Obama did (the FISA) vote for one, but I do not want MCain in there. He will be as bad as Bush and he already has the bad boys working on his campaign. What's to say he won't hire Karl Rove in some office of his. If McCain does get elected, don't complain because nothing is going to change. Who knows with Obama but at least I'm willing to give him a chance.
It is true that this kind of sleazy framing has worked against Kerry and Gore, but something tells me it is not going to work this time against Obama, in the same way that it did not work against Bill Clinton '92. The variable is (just as Clinton '92 with their fact-based, same-day answers to Republican smears): Obama is running a very intelligent campaign, missing few moves, both the candidate and his staff.
Here is my suggestion for Obama campaign ads addressing these attacks: visuals intersperse Republican ridiculous attack ads with clips of an earnest Obama addressing large audiences on the issues, speaking to the hearts of Americans. The contrast between serious and ridiculous, real and forgettable. Staying on message. Defusing the Republican attack ads by setting them in context (showing their irrelevance to issues).
Obama isn't arrogant or elitist. When those words are used that is other language for charging Obama for being intelligent. But his intelligence is understated, and he communicates. This is a campaign and a candidate that has their act together. The New York Times article yesterday about Obama's law school teaching years at U. of Chicago made the point that Obama brought up interesting, thought-provoking and controversial issues in class but rarely declared himself personally. This was hardly because he had no ideas of his own. Obama and the american presidential election: a plebiscite to elect the next emperor--a vastly corrupt and rigged game, and the most decent electable candidate within that rigged game that we have seen in a long time. As I see it. McCain is going to lose his independent voters from these attacks.
A modest proposal concerning third parties with cleaner positions: a self-enforced rule that these parties will run candidates and devote resources only in races with realistic chances of winning--and then do it (win). Knowing "when to hold 'em, when to fold 'em".
I guess between arrogance and stupid, I'll take arrogance.
With Bush we have had arrogance AND stupid!
Thomas More,
The reason I am using the term "bubbas" to be the deciders in the electorate is the realizations of 1) Who McCain is targeting with his ads, and 2) The fact that they are likely to concentrate on the hills of SE Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia (and Michigan.) Those alone might be enough to wrap it up.
I am not trying to be condescending about all voters, but rather to take note that most of us may be so 50/50 divided in the electoral college as to let a small group make the decision----and not the most educated small group at that.
Arrogant!!!??? WTF, he's running for President, leader of the free world... Is McShame running for President out of Humility? The cable punditicracy are a bunch of a-holes and Jon Stewart is the only one who's got their number.
rove and the whole band of thugs belong in gitmo for there invasions,occupations and lies.
we need to support kucinich and put pressure on for 9/11 truth........
I sure am glad that McSame, son of a Admiral, husband of a multi millionaire beer heiress, is not an "elitist"
but the black son of poor slob from Kenya is???????
This clearly demonstrates DUMBOCRACY at work...the problem is not the Karl Roves out there, there will always be fat losers who excel at spreading false rumours about those they envy.....it is the sheer stupidity of the average American that buys into his drivel.
Too many here get trapped in one perspective with one simple model of the world. Of course all who frequent CD are aware of the viewpoint that the Dems and Reps are "two right wings" of the same party, that they both serve the empire and the corporatocracy, and that they have formed some sort of symbiotic relationship where they present a model of the world where they are the only two alternatives, and they trade places every few years to keep the illusion alive.
But the problem is that we find that simple models of the world formed from one perspective always fail to explain much, and models must become more and more complicated to explain more and more facts, until it becomes evident that a model would require potentially an infinite number of adjustments and wrinkles to conform to all the facts, implying that any model that explains all the facts would be unbounded in depth and complexity.
One can see the two parties as cooperating in producing a stable situation where the corporatocracy and the empire can continue to grow and prosper. But nothing grows forever and everything ends. The corporatocracy and the empire are not that old or that stable. All modern human societies have been unstable and few have lasted long without significant upheaval. Those in charge enjoy creating an illusion of stability and inevitability as that serves their purposes in discouraging opposition or even in encouraging hopeless idealistic opposition, which is perceived as an insignificant threat (e.g. evidence of Republican support of Nader in 2004).
Maybe supporting the "lesser of two evils" party will push that party and the society in a progressive direction (ever so slightly), leading to positive social and political evolution, and maybe it will not. Maybe supporting idealistic candidates will weaken the "lesser of two evils" party and maybe it will not. Maybe if that party is weakened that will give the third parties a chance and maybe it will just lead to total control by the "greater of two evils" party. Maybe that will lead to revolution or maybe it will just lead to a police state and mass murder.
For those who want to fight back against the corporatocracy, maybe the best choice is to support McKinney or Nader, or maybe it is to support Obama. But it is really not a simple problem with a simple solution.
We need a VP candidate (like Sherrod Brown or Russ Feingold)or some Progressive governor who can be an attack dog (Nixon or Dole in reverse) to go after the Right Wing and their media allies. Unlike Agnew's false charge of "nattering nabobs of negativity," the NEW MEDIA MONOPOLY is a reality that can be documented every day.
Oddly enough, I could not hear a damn word in the Obama ad. Perhaps net neutrality is mythical already. All the ads at You Tube worked just fine, sound & sight. Perhaps my local internet/cable provider does not like the Obama for President thought. In San Diego there are fewer & fewer choices for accessing the net. As it is in the corporate arm of the U.S. govorporation, the assholes scream open market and then drive towards monopoly. Regardless who shall occupy the White House, we are still doomed.
Araquin,
Who are the people who consider billionaire, Yale-educated George W. Bush a non-elitist? I think that anyone who can get up before the well-heeled at a campaign fundraiser and proudly boast that "the Haves and the Have-Mores" are his base is a prime example of an elitist.
You seem to equivocate not being well-educated to dumbness. Maybe I am misinterpreting? Degrees, whether from Yale, Harvard, or Columbia, do not necessarily an edudated person make. But they are an access to the higher echelons of government and business, but I'm not telling you anything there.
I will say that another example of elitism are the candidates who conspire with the RNC or DNC as well as the corporate media to shut candidates out of the public debate, who don't fit into the corporate agenda,i.e. Kucinich, Ron Paul, Mike Gravel, Cindy Sheehan, Cynthia McKinney, and so on...too messy for the smart set (elitists). Even John Edwards, who conspired with Hillary earlier in the campaign to sharply limit participation of the "lesser" candidates, later felt the sting as the DNC chose to promote the two biggest liars. Call me prejudiced or intolerant, but I also believe that if you are a member of, or connected to the Council on Foreign Relations, you are probably an elitist.
As to Rich Griffin being as self-righteous as Pol Pot, that's just a bit over-reaching. One of the main reasons for Pol Pot being able to act out his particular intolerance was, as more often than not, secret and not-so-secret backing of the United States. I doubt that Rich will be able to expect any backing from from McCain or Obama, unless of course he gets REALLY CRAZY.
Indeed, matti, you hit it right on the head. I might add there is more than a little insanity in this notion that only once every four years there is a chance to "change" things by voting. It's the most impotent political act imaginable.
"Brava", matti,you laid it our rather well.
How exactly is being the son of a diplomat the "hard way" -BeBe-?
Do the feds now pay minimum wage to their consulate office workers?
I know Obama went to Harvard on scholarship, but does that really directly translate to "came up the hard way" to you?
I know his father wasn't around, but if you'll recall, there were quite a few educated women raising kids on their own in the '70s -they were called Feminists.
His WEBSITE doesn't even mention any tough-background sort of stuff, so why do you?
Seems he was fairly middle-class to me.
-zzz-'s point is the relevant issue here, I know, but I just had to bring this up.
Somebody tried to give me this same sad song-and-dance about Obama's "growing up poor" just last night and it kinda pisses me off.
"Poor" huh? Which craphole apartment did he live in, in which inner-city or boarded up farm town? Which gangs tried to pressure him into joining? How may of his friends and relatives are dead from drugs, or guns, in prison, or are now tweekers? How did he deal with not having up-to-date books at his High School? How did he deal with taking care of his siblings while his mom worked a double shift at the 7-11? What were his grades at Community College? How did he balance that with his night-stocker job at the Wal-Mart?
See, I get pissed off just typing this out.
There are TENS OF MILLIONS of ACTUAL poor, working-class people in this country who really DID come up "the hard way".
Many of them will be too busy working to care about voting for one more guy with a book-deal and a few mil. Many of them don't watch enough Cable TV to buy into this "he's so great" starry-eyed worship of Obama.
For this, many of those who have the time to lurk the Internets will call them "apathetic" or "rubes" or "idiots" or worse.
Which is a real gut-buster because these Obamaniacs are prepared to vote, promote, and defend, a candidate who will:
A) Escalate the insane "War on Terror"
B) Ensure the Big-money boys are in on the National Healthcare racket, make sure none of his Wall Steet donors goes down for torpedo-ing the "economy", and help them pass-the-buck to the "little people".
C) Ignore the Constitution and continue the violations of our Liberties and continue the Imperial Presidency.
While at the same moment claiming to believe in and stand for:
1) Peace.
2) Fairness and Equality.
3) Justice and Law.
So who's the bigger idiot here?
Obama better start talkin' REAL SOON -and from now until Election Day- about the proposals he will bring to Congress to "fix" our economic soon-to-be-disaster. AND it better be full of stuff like "work creation", "regulation", "progressive taxation", "splitting-up corporations", or I'll find myself not even going to the bother of filling in his little circle while I'm voting for the State and Local offices and referenda that really matter to me.
If that "means McCain wins" and ups the ante on the "nazi-ness" of the Bush years then so be it!
If, as going into a economic depression caused by greedy fat-cats and capital(debt) pools we can't even get DEMOCRAT to talk like FDR -who didn't just NOT come up "the hard way" but was a full-on Old Money Blue-Blood fer crissakes!- then , well , we're pretty damned screwed either way aren't we?
Can't everbody see that?
Or am I wearing special glasses?
This isn't fun.
I'm going to the real World.
-matti.
Whatever you might say about Karl Rove, he's redefined politics to the point what he says, does, or thinks needs to be taken extremely seriously.
It might be fun to poke at Bush's "turd blossom," but even Bush knew what Rove could do.
Rove studies polls all day long. He's a master of wedge issues: this year, it'll be elitist (said it on my blog months ago.)
Rove's picked his battles extremely well. I'm afraid a lot of Obama supporters are like the Union before the first battle of Bull Run--green, overconfident, and disrespectful of their foe.
Master what Rove does and you'll get what Rove gets: the Presidency. I know it's not what you want to hear--it's all about doing what's necessary to win.
Now as for Rove's ethics--of course he's a liar, cheater, who's as we speak been found in contempt by Congress. Perhaps this is as much to contain him then punish him for his previous successes, and the obvious deceptions and political moves he pulled, notably with Valerie Plame and the politicization of the DOJ.
Fox News has also featured Ralph Nader, a PAID-Pundit, attacking Democrats.
I think keeping McCain and his promised three front war needs to happen before anything-Obama being the alternative FOR THIS ELECTION.
Maybe immediately afterwards some who care could start building a platform base and organization for a Good Candidate. Dennis Kucinich comes to mind. I would help.
Kucinich for President '12. Why Not?
But Starting December '08. Dreams Allowed?
Doesn't it say something about Fox News employing old Rove when he has been held in "Contempt" by Congress and all the stuff that he has done? If McCain listens to him, that doesn't say much for him. Of course, he is desparate. McCain lives an elitist life style being married to his very wealthy wife. Obama came up the hard way. If being educated, intelligent and well spoken is arrogant then that leaves McCain out. President Bush is arrogant but he is certainly not educated or well spoken.
Obama better start putting out some bad ads. Being nice doesn't get you anywhere when it comes to the Republicans. Give them some of their own medicine.
This is a wonderful way to distract people from realizing that Obama and McCain are advocating the same major policy proposals.
1. Considering the state of US media, it's no use remaining nice, I fear. The Obama camp have to take off their gloves and kick ass.
Considering what they did to Hillary Clinton - cheered on by all these self-proclaimed "progressives", I remember - it can't be for lack of ability for meanness, after all.
2. What exactly does "elitist" mean in America? Since billionaire Bush, Yale-educated, is somehow seen as non-elitist, one wonders what is meant by the term.
3. In case "elitist" means well educated: So it's become a virtue to be dumb???
That would basically mean a late validation of all these tired centuries-old stereotypes of Americans in Europe as uneducated and uncultured. I refuse to believe that this really is the case!!
4. Rich Griffin, you're beginning to remind me of Pol Pot. I'm sure he was as self-righteous as you when he was in exile in Paris. Unfortunately, he later had the chance to live out his intolerance.
Whoever doesn't view the world in your one(!!!) right way is being called names. It's at the end of the day not people like you who change anything. And if some of your ilk have managed to do it by force, it doesn't last.
There is no one right way, and whoever thinks that there is ought to head for Kandahar province in Afghanistan and join their brethren in spirit, the Taliban. They have the same attitude.
MISTER CHIPS (apart from the 8:17 posting), excellent points.
Have you ever noticed that when the top 10% of a graduating class goes off to college where purportedly they are among the 10% of other schools, the population once again forms itself into D-C-B-A students.
In a sort of parallel manner in this forum of mostly progressives, there is an ilk that is by nature pragmatic. It sees the obvious 2 choice political theater already set, and argues for which of the 2 choices makes the most sense.
Other voices are quick to expose--with much evidence to support them--that BOTH of the 2 so-called choices back too many of the SAME policies, and this itself is disengenuous.
Some are willing to toss the whole thing seeing that it has proven a fraud for a long, long time. The extent to which corporate interests have infested our government and rendered it completely out of touch with the public good or citizens' needs is probably at its all time high.
There have always been tensions in this nation between the rights of specific groups and those of entrenched interests. Never have we seen the latter own the ways and means to having legislation in its favor rubber stamped. Thus these ARE dangerous times. Dangerous when a McCarthy style list is circulating, when this time round the surveillance technologies would even surprise Orwell, dangerous when a standing army is in fact being set up, most chillingly under private contract, and the very concept of terrorist is too easily translatable to one against THIS (overtly corrupt!) government. So.
Tough choices any which way... almost like the corporatists have played chess with the US Constitution, 3 branches and to an extent the citizenry and we're definitely in check.
Lisa and Oceangrrl,
This is probably too silly--but would you be up for collaborating on a picture/storybook called "My little Pet Goatherd"??
Oceangrrl,
Have you never heard of people of "humble beginnings" rising through the ranks to become high-paid prostitutes, and sometimes in a relatively short period. Not to necessarily disparage prostitues, but Obama is no ordinary prostitute. He is being used to convince you that we must shift the theater of military adventurism from Iraq to Afghanistan and Pakistan. It's organized crime of the Republicans competing with the organized crime of the Democrats. Neocons--Neoliberals. Left--Right. Bull!! Sometimes Mafia families cooperate--other times they stab each other in the backs.
Obama is, to this point, using the same phony WAR ON TERROR crap as McCain. What if such an important candidate made it to such a presumptive position and then discovered enough integrity to start spouting relevant truths? Maybe 95% of the electorate would be aghast. Maybe the candidates life would be in danger. No! No! No! Too much to risk!! Ahh, but what a beautiful dream. A Dangerous Dream, to be sure. But could there be other unknown possibilities? Reality vs. RealPolitik. RealPolitik vs. Reality. I'd like to eat my pie up in a hot-air balloon, but alas, I must be content to carry my pie out into the back yard and eat as I watch the hot-air balloons go by--that is , while I can still afford a piece of pie.
If Bu$h the inferior is the opposite of elitist. I want an elitist for president. I can't think of any quality the current occupant has that I want the next president to have.
OK, here's a way to hit back at McKeating in Rovian style, without dirtying the Dem candidate:
Dust off those attack ads from the 2000 primaries that Rove himself used to emasculate gramps. No need to update or edit ... just air them as they were originally presented. They certainly turned off the "bubbas" at the time.
Daniel David July 31st, 2008 1:58 pm
"Since the election is going to be decided by the very bubbas"
I'm disappointed that you are using sterotyping and not very valid at that. The Bubbas as you call them constitute about 80% of our population.
Of course Obama is a bit arrogant, do you want Gumby leading our country. McCain is a bit arrogant too wouldn't you say.
All leaders are I'd say.
oceangrrl - 6:50 pm
I don't understand how someone can be called elitist if they did not come from the "elite" [...]
_________________________________
I can't say what people really mean when they apply the term to Obama, but I can say that some are born elite; some achieve elite status; some have elite status thrust upon them.
(sorry to post 2x)
dhv... I agree completely. I would be very disappointed to see a vid of McCain being compared to ... I dunno... Madonna?
The high road is always the best one to take. McCain's path has really made me loose respect for him (not that I ever supported him). They are trying desperately to appeal to the youth... but alas... the Republican party is the one out of touch and... out of line.
I don't understand how someone can be called elitist if they did not come from the "elite" ... Obama is one of the only politicians to make it this far to NOT to come from ivory tower of career family politico and moolah. I think what people are meaning is "intellectual." ... and it is easy to understand why given the examples of the american intellect that I see in pop culture and politics...
If the "progressive" (and I use the term loosely because if this derisive devide continues, there will be no progress but continued descent) community cannot find common ground and get the bloody republicans out of office with an intelligent and viable candidate who has made some of the most "progressive" statements heard nationally in this crazy totalitarian and backward era then we are truly lost.
Do I think Obama is perfect, no. Do I think he can afford to broadcast all of his own views and win, no. But I know that if he is elected he will be better than McCain. By virtue of his background, name, race and ability to use more than monosyllabic words he will have changed this country on the first day of office. Most of the time you have to take small steps towards a goal. I don't think Obama is a small step, but to those of you who do...you should bloody well vote for him. A vote for any other or none at all is simply a vote for McCain.
This is an improvement, people. Why can't you just continue to express your concerns (like mine re: his stance on the MidEast) but support the guy. Or at very least quit being so incredibly rude.
I find Mr. Greenwald's above analysis of the dynamic between Republican operatives and the mainstream press to be a generally compelling one. In an update, he also added...
"The Obama campaign is... still clearly unwilling (just as Kerry was, and just as Michael Dukakis was) to attack the GOP candidate with similar attack themes. The Obama campaign seems to believe that such attacks are counter-productive." As to the point Mr. Greenwald is making here, I don't think that responding in kind to personal attack ads is necessarily the obvious answer or, by implication, that to NOT do so is somehow misguided or weak.
I'm reminded of debates about how to conduct a war. Politics is also seen as a "field of battle" and the argument in both cases is to "do what works." In terms of war, cluster bombs "work." So drop them. Land mines "work." Use them. And why should our troops be hindered by strict Rules of Engagement when the enemy doesn't follow any such rules? The point is to win. Do what it takes.
But the age old question of whether the ends justify the means and, if so, at what point one crosses the line and becomes the very thing one is fighting against, is a serious one. While I don't think one can say who is exactly "right" or "wrong" in their conclusions about this eternal dilemma, I believe it is crucial we each do our own soul searching in this regard.
I believe Senator Obama has done so and is operating out of the answers he came to. It is my wish that they serve him well and contribute to a decisive victory in November. My hope is that he sticks with those convictions because I also believe that remaining true to himself and losing would still have a more positive impact in the long run than were he to betray his own principles and win.
RichM; Are you insane? Given the way you have attacked me personally, your endless ugly insults directed at me, your post almost transcends high humor.
But not quite.
Thanks For The Laughs.
Obama '08.
Out of disgust for Poppy Bush in l992, I was FORCED to vote for Bill Clinton, who then managed to set things up nicely for the next phase of Global Fascism, the first openly declared Dictator of the United States. Obama recently mentioned that he would have his legal team review abuses by the Bush regime. God!! I'm so relieved. I know Obama will get back to us later. For one thing, Obama has actively aligned himself with the likes of Pelosi, Hoyer, Emanuel and the rest in their efforts to subvert the campaigns of anti-war candidates in the last election, not to mention the election coming up. Obama will have no power to make any meaningful changes. No segment of The People will be able to "hold his feet to the fire", especially the YOUTH element which have so eagerly bought into his "beautiful vision". (Actually, I do have confidence and hope in the "youth", though not in the idolization of YOUTH CULTURE.)
Obama was picked up from the "reeds of the Nile" and groomed by the Globalists (Rockefeller, Brzienzki, the Council on Foreign Relations, etc,) to provide the yin to W's yang (or could it be the other way around?)...and into the next phase of the Globalist agenda. On the morning TV gabfest, THE VIEW, Nancy Pelosi, when asked "why no impeachment", replied that she thought it would be "too divisive for the country" and then proceeded to rattle off legislative "accomplishments" of the Democrats since the '06 election. She then had the gall to suggest that impeachment could be considered only if someone came with an impeachable offense. She herself couldn't think of any. But I'm sure that after Obama's legal team have done their "review", impeachment will be back on the table. For Sure!! What will it take for those who are so wonder-struck with the apparition of Obama to get it?! Providing the electoral process manages to hobble on into the future, it will most likely be a contest between whichever ad agency can produce the best holograms and sound system.
PegatWork says - "Well, I'm old as dirt, and hitting back at idiotic ideas is important. That has been our problem for too many campaigns. Democrats are not tough enough. Clinton was a street fighter, and he knew how to fight back. Sleazy attack ads are one thing, strong solid tough responses are something else entirely."
Which is why I was for Hilary vs Obama - she knows how to fight, and the very mention of her name causes Republicans to go red with apoplexy. I don't want a candidate to make nice and reach across the aisle to reason with those terrorist scumbags - I want someone who'll metaphorically castrate them every time they try to pull some of their crap. I wanted Kerry to show some fire, he didn't, and he lost. I certainly want to see some fire out of Obama, or he'll lose, too. Call the lying scumbag Republicans what they are, Obama - lying scumbags.
With the economy tanking and gas prices up, and if (a big if) Cheney doesn't pull some kind of martial law stunt before the elections, the Democrats should see a big majority in both houses of congress. I want them to then systematically burn down every Republican plank they have put up in the last 8 years, and continue on back to burn out Reagan and his hateful policies which sent the US into this death spiral. Will I get that? No, but that dream is the only thing keeping me going politically.
PS - Interesting note about Hilton donating to McCain when they use his daughter's empty celebrity to mock Obama. No Republican is worth a shit.
Good point frank. A remarkable number of people think the talking head makes it up as he/she goes along.
No, Lisa, that's wrong. The CD attacks on Obama are not "personal" attacks, like those Rove specializes in. On the contrary, they are accurate criticisms, based on the objective fact that Obama, like the Republicans, is a militarist/corporatist who will continue the "War on Terror," but won't defend the Constitution. It's not sleaze, nor is it personal, to take note of that.
It's not being arrogant if you are simply aware that you are more intelligent, more energetic, and morally superior to another person. All of us are inferior to some, superior to others in many respects.
As far as being elitist, Obama didn't make the world the way it is or control the accident of birth that made some people better than others. (Everybody knows it's true; nobody likes to say it)
I think Obama is preferable to McCain in every way. How much better, only time will tell.
If McCain's Campaign Committee seeks Sleezy Ugly Personal Attacks Against Obama,
They Might Lift Some Material From CD's Threads.
"relentlessly painted his opponent, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, as effete, elite, and equivocal through a daily blitz of sound bites and Web videos that were carefully coordinated with Mr. Bush's television advertisements."
Sad thing is that the dim-witted dunderheads actually fall for this crap.
WHADDAYAKNOW DEPT.: Flash---news today revealed that Paris Hilton's father is a major donor to the McCain campaign. Oops! they did it again
Obama is a jerk, a conservative, a liar, and a conniving politician. However, McCain is a ghoulish cretinous monster who is willing to risk our lives and those of our children to fulfill his backers wet dreams of enslaving most of the world, and is determined to completely impoverish us and destroy our children's future if he does not manage to get us killed.
I have not voted for a Democratic presidential nominee in a long time, but my hatred, yes hatred, for McCain, his criminal gang of a party, and everything he and they stand for will force me to pull the lever for Obama. And I do not think anything can change my mind.
Goebbels sez - "Psst, Karl … your penis envy is showing again."
With that shriveled up little raisin, it must be terribly difficult not to let that envy show.
GG misses the obvious - Rove doesn't have some sort of magical powers that force the Big Corp "chirping media birds" to mindlessly repeat his lies and defamations until it's lodged into our discourse as accepted fact.
Clearly, the Five Families of media ownership got the message: play ball with us and you get pardons, and immunity, and a bailout if ya need it. Don't wanna play ball? (Slowly sneering): good luck with that... we tap everything, disappear people and torture now. Have you heard?...
The "reporters" and "journalists" and the rest are simply typical Americans willing to do or saying anything if the check clears. Ya really think Millbank or Cooper have "final cut," free reign to say or write anything they want?
Now, now, Rich and Rich. Let Daniel David take you by the hand. He will guide you both to the "smart" people. He knows who they are. Don't you want to be with the smart set?
The first stage of political consciousness is recognizing that Republicans are the scum of the earth.
The second stage is recognizing that Democrats are no better.
The third stage is recognizing that the real source of evil is neither of these 2 repulsive groupings taken by itself; but rather the common framework upheld by these 2 supporting pillars. Neither party alone would be capable of keeping this framework alive -- the public would soon come to despise it & do away with it. But by working in close symbiosis, the 2 parties can keep the game going indefinitely -- a remarkably stable mechanism for maintaining the class & policy structure over time.
Have to agree---Obama is a Pelosi-style elitist and will butter his bread however he "has to" to keep things all about himself. That is the difference that Nader makes for me. It was never about Nader and that's why he is rocket fuel of an octane far too high for the MSM or Indiana. Fuck 'em. Let 'em learn the hard way if that's their choice.
Obama IS arrogant, so I just don't understand what this article is all about? Obama is not worthy of anyone's vote (same is true of McCain) - so what?? And Obama IS an elitist. I suspect many voters understand this intuitively; only other elitists seem to have delusions that he isn't an arrogant elitist who doesn't deserve anybody's vote.
Just thumbed through my Neocon-English dictionary for the translation of "arrogant."
It's "Uppity"
Since the election is going to be decided by the very bubbas that the Republicans are targeting with their smear campaign---Obama's best move now would probably be to put Hillary on the ticket. But, "they" say now its increasingly unlikely---and that's probably unfortunate.
Look at which voters the Repugs are targeting (with crap)and ask yourself why we, the left, aren't doing the proper innoculation of crap-repellant (for those voters).
Glenn,
Thank you yet again for your tremendous, clearly written insights into the twisted workings of the Kool Kids insider's club in D.C. You, Alterman, Boehlert, Hamsher, Digby among a number of others are leading the charge in exposing the "business as usual" election ritual of the press' wholesale bitch-slapping of Dems and unquestioning worshipping of the manly Repubs. With all of us together we can change this contrived master narrative and show the promulgators in all of their self-congratulatory and disgusting fawning. Do you think that their internalizing and repetition of baseless Repub talking points is conscious, or are they so conditioned that they do not even notice what they are doing?
You go boy! Take 'em down, Glenn, as only you can. We're backing you up!
Rove sez: "(Obama is) the guy at the country club with the beautiful date, holding a martini and a cigarette that stands against the wall and makes snide comments about everyone who passes by," and labeled him "cooly arrogant."
***
Psst, Karl ... your penis envy is showing again.
Unfortunately, this sort of stuff works, and Obama is letting things drift by just like Kerry did on the Swift boats. He didn't answer until it was too late. Obama didn't visit the sick soldiers because, first the Pentagon said he couldn't, and then because Obama himself thought it would be political (McCain hits him for not visiting the sick troops). Obama says nothing. Drilling offshore is another boondoggle for the big oil companies making billions in profits and won't get to the gas-tanks for another decade, if then! The Democrats just vote no and say nothing while the poll numbers saying yes to drilling go up. Next, can I expect Obama to go to some luxurious beach to take a vacation (it doesn't matter if he needs one), while Americans are losing their homes? While American Taxpayers are bailing out the big banks and loan sharks, and McCain continues to support tax cuts for the rich, I hear Obama talking vaguely about change and trillions of dollars in the deficit for my grandkids to pay, but is he attacking McCain as part of the problem. McCain is calling Obama arrogant, isn't transfering wealth to the wealthy arrogant? Hell no. Obama thinks that hitting back with the facts is "old politics". Well, I'm old as dirt, and hitting back at idiotic ideas is important. That has been our problem for too many campaigns. Democrats are not tough enough. Clinton was a street fighter, and he knew how to fight back. Sleazy attack ads are one thing, strong solid tough responses are something else entirely. Peg McCormack, Californoia.
Great article Glenn. Will it make up for your other pieces "holding Obama's feet to the fire"? Gleeful TRDs and MOBs here had a field day with those.
TRD - Tricky Republican Devil
MOB - McKinney's Obama Bashers
obama is ready willing and able to deal the shit right back at this senile miserable coward that is john mccain
mccain graduated second to last in his class as a cadet
he is called a war hero - he crashed five planes during his career and was a pow for five years - where he sang to enemy propaganda
he used the "c" word to describe his wife in front of the press gallery
he is older than the hills - more crotchety than an octogenarian with nasty colon issues
he could probably use a high colonic now that i think about it
rove is not an aberration of american politics - he is the embodiment of it
lies and death
the proud grandson of a nazi
heil rockefeller - grandson of a man who, at the time of his death was wanted on nine rape and two murders charges - literally a snake oil seller
makes you kind of proud don't it
Here we go again with this idea that anyone who is not a Republican is somehow an "elitist."
And isn't Bush (and the Bush Administration) the epitomy of messianism and arrogance and everything else in that realm? And if McCain is following in the footsteps of Bush, wouldn't he essentially adopt those qualities?
I feel that this is a replay of 2004, where we have essentially an obviously inferior candidate from the Republican side, one who is not very articulate or focused and what I fear is that regardless of this glaring difference between the two candidates, the one who is more inept will win (just like in 2004) because he's just "a regular guy."
No Republican is worth a shit.
if this summary says nothing to my republican friends out there, nothing will:
The fact that they all say the same thing at once ("up next: Is Obama arrogant?" — "Obama's arrogance can hurt him" — "Obama is striking many as arrogant and presumptuous" — "Obama needs to be careful not to appear too arrogant") doesn't strike any of them as evidence that they're mindless, manipulated spouters of conventional wisdom.
apparently it doesn't strike their supporters that way either.
when you all agree...
most of you aren't thinking