Glenn Greenwald at Salon is aghast at how Keith Olbermann could turn on a dime on the subject of FISA wiretaps and telecomm company amnesties in connection with counterterror wiretaps simply because Barack Obama changed his position. How could he? The logical error in Greenwald’s thinking is to assume that Olbermann had a position. Greenwald laments:
What’s much more notable is Olbermann’s full-scale reversal on how he talks about these measures now that Obama — rather than George Bush — supports them. On an almost nightly basis, Olbermann mocks Congressional Democrats as being weak and complicit for failing to stand up to Bush lawbreaking; now that Obama does it, it’s proof that Obama won’t “cower.” Grave warning on Olbermann’s show that telecom amnesty and FISA revisions were hallmarks of Bush Fascism instantaneously transformed into a celebration that Obama, by supporting the same things, was leading a courageous, centrist crusade in defense of our Constitution. Is that really what anyone wants — transferring blind devotion from George Bush to Barack Obama? Are we hoping for a Fox News for Obama, that glorifies everything he says and whitewashes everything he does?
Obama’s candidacy is partly founded on a cult of personality. He is the Face, the One we’ve been waiting for. A voter who simply wanted to endorse a set of policies could have voted for John Edwards or Hillary Clinton as well as Barack Obama. Obama’s distinctive competence is that he is Barack Obama. Without that singular qualification he would simply be one in a long line of standard bearers for a set of liberal prescriptions that are forty years old. This circumstance also explains why attacks on BHO tend to take the form of impugning his personality.
To a certain extent the candidacy of Barack Obama represents a revival of the idea of an aristocracy. The word itself comes from the Greek aristokratía which means “the rule of the best”. This is in contrast to the idea of a democracy, in which the officeholders themselves are nothing special. In fact, there is the subtle assumption that leaders in a democracy will frequently be mediocrities if not outright rogues. What is important in a democracy is that officeholders carry out the will of the people; that is to say, popular policy.
Glenn Reynolds points out that if we had “‘a Supreme Court that looks like America,’ Heller would have been 7-2, … or at least 6-3,” citing surveys which showed that “a clear majority of the U.S. public — 73% — believes the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the rights of Americans to own guns. And almost 7 out of 10 Americans are opposed to a law that would make the possession of a handgun illegal, except by the police.” But as Greenwald points out, in an Olbermann world the relevant metric isn’t ‘what do the people want’, or even ‘what is right but “what does Obama think?” It’s a concept that is instantly familiar within the context of an aristocracy, where by definition, what matters is the King’s will.
Great Britain, which entered the 20th century with its aristocracy in working condition found that the aristocrats were not necessarily wiser than the common man. One of the major casualties of the Great War was the consensus that the “Public School boys knew best”. But because it was customary from the Public School boys to lead from the front, no one learned better how fallible their judgments were than the Golden Youth of Britain itself. The Public School boys buried themselves in the mud of the Western Front, sometimes taking a soccer ball “over the top”. Interestingly, while other societies had moved away from the idea of a class of naturally superior persons, the concept was enjoying a revival in America. David Halberstam’s, book “The Best and the Brightest” recounted the blunders of “President John F. Kennedy’s ‘whiz kids’ — leaders of industry and academia brought into his administration — whom Halberstam characterized as arrogantly insisting on ‘brilliant policies that defied common sense’ in Vietnam, often against the advice of career US Department of State employees.” And while I wonder whether the career State Department employees would truly have done better, even the “Best and the Brightest” rooted their legitimacy in the superiority of their ideas and in the brilliance of their policies. They never reached the point, which every cult of personality naturally achieves, of arguing from Divine Right.
C. S. Lewis argued that the extinction of the individual and its replacement by nothingness is the ultimate peril. One of his most satanic characters, Edward Rolles Weston is filled, not by a magnificent malice, but by an arbitrary, banal pettiness. Describing Weston, Lewis writes “For temptation, for blasphemy, for a whole battery of horrors, he [the protagonist] was in some sort prepared; but hardly for this petty, indefatigable nagging as of a nasty little boy at a preparatory school. Indeed no imagined horror could have surpassed the sense which grew within him as the slow hours passed, that this creature was, by all human standards, inside out – its heart on the surface and its shallowness at the heart. On the surface, great designs and an antagonism to Heaven which involved the fate of worlds: but deep within, when every veil had been pierced, was there, after all, nothing but a black puerility, an aimless empty spitefulness content to sate itself with the tiniest cruelties, as love does not disdain the smallest kindness.” I think Greenwald, in recoiling from personalities with apparently no will of their own, would recognize the symptoms well.
Contribute to the Belmont Club.
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
61 Comments
1. Charles:I don’t have the quotes handy but as I recall bill clinton ascended to god like status in the liberal press in 1992.
I think reports in 2007-8 of bill clinton’s continued dalliances and then the $10,000 contributions from numerous chinatown residents soured the liberal press on hillary’s candidacy. they realized the clinton’s had not changed at all. and further they would be embarrassed.
the liberal press is pushing obama up to the same godlike status that bill clinton had early in his administration. however, I don’t think that this time they will succeed. obama doesn’t appear to be a filanderer like bill but he has other problems–not least of which is the question of whether he is legally qualified to be president.
Jun 26, 2008 - 9:27 pm 2. Tamquam Leo Rugiens:Le roi est mort. Vive le roi! Leftism is an empty ideology deriving it’s energy not from what it builds, but from what it destroys. There are no fixed principles, no grand ideas, only the will to power through destruction. Olbermann is nothing more than a functionary at the Department of Truth.
Jun 26, 2008 - 9:32 pm 3. Charles:for anyone wishing to do more indepth research on obama — here is a reference article with many many links
Jun 26, 2008 - 9:40 pm 4. MarkJ:To me, Obama’s triple backflip with a twist on FISA, etc. has had the same impact on many of his supporters as the 1939 Nazi-Soviet nonagression pact had on Cominternists. Total shock…followed by a frantic rush to come up with a new! improved! general party line.
Following a mercurial messiah is a real bitch, ain’t it?
Jun 26, 2008 - 9:43 pm 5. NahnCee:Charles — really? Indepth research on an essentially shallow personality? I don’t think so.
Jun 26, 2008 - 9:47 pm 6. Richard Fernandez:The New York Times calls it “a Pragmatist’s Shift Toward the Center … Barack Obama has taken a stroll this week away from traditional liberal political positions, his path toward the political center marked by artful leaps and turns.”
Literary talent can turn ‘flip flopping’ becomes “artful leaps and turns”. The article goes on:
Back on the old site I remarked in comments that while Obama had a certain kind of talent, he wasn’t the sort of person you would ever want to admit into a clandestine cell or share a foxhole with. Imagine being in Bataan with a guy who could suddenly turn Japanese. I wonder if even the Japanese would have wanted him. But somehow I think the NYT writer is uneasy about this too. His closing paragraph borders perilously on satire and irony.
Karma karma karma karma karma chameleon
You come and go
You come and go
Loving would be easy if your colors were like my dream
Red, gold and green
Red, gold and green
I’m a man without conviction
Jun 26, 2008 - 10:09 pm 7. Alexis:I’m a man who doesnt know
How to sell a contradication
You come and go
You come and go
When a show called “Barney and Friends” started to get shown on PBS fifteen years ago, I wondered what kind of person Barney worshippers would support. I wondered if Barney fans would gravitate to the political candidate who is the most similar to the mythical purple dinosaur.
There are many aspects of the Barney show I detest, whether it is teaching children to trust strangers, its insipid cultural stereotyping, its annoying “I love you, you love me” theme song, or teaching children to follow the instructions of whatever the purple dinosaur says. Children should not be taught bowdlerized reality; leaving a child psychologically vulnerable to the wiles of the predator does them no favors.
In the original version of “Little Red Riding Hood”, the wolf ate the little girl. That was the point of the story. What’s more, the eighteenth century version of the story had its share of sexual innuendo. In the old tales, ruthless predators ate the children, and it was the deaths of those fictive children that served as lessons to the real children about the real dangers that lurked in the shadows.
The penalty for some mistakes is death. In real life, real children die. They don’t come back to life after the wolf’s stomach is slit upon. Neither magical amulets nor nostalgia for the politics of a purple dinosaur nor the idealism of Marvin the Martian will save civilization from the choices it must make to defend itself.
Let’s not forget that while Barney had (and still has) his loyal following, Barney is not all-powerful. Not only did fathers enjoy shooting at Barney at the firing range and adolescent boys enjoy talking about fighting jihad against Barney, but many little children detested Barney as well. The power of Barney can be defeated.
Jun 26, 2008 - 10:39 pm 8. whiskey:Well of course Leftism is Aristo, and Conservatism is (barely) populist.
Aristos want to control the State to thus control every and all aspects of people’s lives, like how many squares of toilet paper each bathroom visit, or “carbon footprint” and rationing, etc. while they jet about in private planes and lounge in limos.
Jun 26, 2008 - 10:59 pm 9. Sara:When Candidate Bill Clinton was running in ‘92, he generated intense dislike in me. Every time I saw him on TV, I wanted to jump through the screen and knock that constant smirk off his face. It really irritated me.
I have that same type of reaction to Obama, only by 100 fold. I saw Clinton for the sleaze of a man he is from the git go, but I never questioned his knowledge of our country, its core values of patriotism and pride, or that he loved the country. We might not have been on the same side politically, but at least I knew he knew what my side was. With Obama, all I do is question where his true loyalties lie. He seems to be embarrassingly uninformed about this country and the people who make it strong and viable. I believe him to be a communist sympathizer. And most of all, I think all you have to do is feed his ego and he’ll dance to whatever tune you play as long as there is a payoff for him as well. His puppet masters have promised his ego the presidency, but who is really going to be calling the shots? The Chicago political machine? George Soros? Or some foreign interest? The longer the campaign runs, the more unsure of the answer I get.
Jun 26, 2008 - 11:09 pm 10. Charles:Karma karma karma karma karma chameleon
///////////
Mercy, if you ever have these lines above in your head its a sign you really really need to preach to your soul. just what? beats me. only thing I can recall right off is john 3:16 and maybe most of the 23rd psalm.
also shoot up a word of prayer to the living God.
Jun 26, 2008 - 11:16 pm 11. Mouse:This guy is more interesting than Weston:
“A guy like Monzer is a work of perverted art. He is in every way as elaborate as the Mona Lisa, if the devil and not Da Vinci were the painter. And evil at that level knows what you’re thinking; entices you; laughs with you; upbraids you for your petty prissiness.”
Weston though, is more common, a thin man “filled with passionate intensity.” The intensity is there because what is thin is easily heated. It is passion –passionate conviction– because in such passion is pleasure; what fills the void of an otherwise empty soul is a pleasure.
But what is the conviction? It doesn’t much matter, as long as it’s in opposition to the present. All such passion seeks salvation. It’s only through “hope”, through “moving beyond” that there can be this salvation, this individual transformation. And of course the most immediately satisfying first stage in that transformation is righteousness; one certainly is righteous when one is remarkable enough to recognize that the present is rotten.
But what to believe when the soul is thin and there’s nothing inside solid that forms a struggle that finally forms conviction? Well, whatever the leader says. That’s good enough; it seems common. In our nation, if it’s liberal and it’s change it’s righteous and it’s good.
And from where is it that the deep thinking and dear leader draws this eloquent conviction? –It’s my conviction (I see I’m not the only one)that it’s straight from Chicago.
Jun 26, 2008 - 11:28 pm 12. Doug:Laura Logan, Michael Ware, in Combat!
Sources say the Emmy winning Lara Logan began the affair with 36-year-old U.S. State Department contractor, Burkett in war-torn Baghdad.
And yet another scandal brews in the steamy mix: Lara’s reported romance with a star CNN correspondent – Michael Ware, whose jealousy exploded in a battle royal with Burkett in a Baghdad “safe house.”
—
(She just got through trashing Laura Bush’s “one second trip” to Afghanistan on the Stewart show)
Burkett’s wife Kimberly, 32, was so upset about Joe’s cheating that she took an overdose of Valium.
Kimberly Burkett’s attorney told the Enquirer, “Kimberly believes Lara stole her husband – and now they’re trying to steal her little girl.”
To add fuel to the fire, her two lovers, Burkett and Ware, got into a brutal battle over her in Baghdad!
Passions got so hot in the combat zone that one of her lovers, Joe Burkett, brawled in a Baghdad “safe house” with her other lover, CNN war reporter Michael Ware, a source said.
Jun 26, 2008 - 11:51 pm 13. Doug:“Unfortunately, her reporting from the frontlines of Afghanistan has taken a back seat to her alleged sexual exploits. This will only fuel her infamous nickname coined by the British tabloids as “34D Lara.” You can see those 34 D’s in a swimsuit here.
Logan was previously said to be living in London with her husband, Jason Siemon, a professional basketball player.”
Jun 26, 2008 - 11:57 pm 14. Barry Meislin:Just a second, here. Obama has, after all, been promising change.
And yes, MarkJ has it right. For quite a few of the faithful, the Great Leader’s treaty with the National Socialists was (or became) a master stroke of far-sighted diplomacy and brilliant strategy. (It was merely a matter of understanding just why.)
And of course, we have always been at war with….
Jun 27, 2008 - 12:32 am 15. Jim Jackson:Since the move to Pajamas Media, the quality of the comments has undergone a major deterioration. I always felt that the comments were at least as important as Wretchard’s essays. Now many are poor or downright bizarre.
Jun 27, 2008 - 4:11 am 16. Tom the Redhunter:“the One we’ve been waiting for”
The religious overtones are overwhelming. Cult of personality, yes, but more neo-pagan worship, I think.
Jun 27, 2008 - 5:09 am 17. Aaron:Where can I find more info on the FISA bill? All I can find in google search are articles about Obama’s stance on it and generally liberal interpretations of the wiretapping stuff.
I had been under the impression that the FISA bill helped cover the issue of surveillance on foreign nationals overseas, when that data was routed into the US. But all the news articles I see are claiming that the issue is about monitoring US citizens and laws broken by US Telecom companies. I feel like I’m uninformed on this issue.
Also to Jim Jackson: I agree.
Jun 27, 2008 - 6:20 am 18. NahnCee:Jim Jackson – too bad you didn’t have anything to add to the discussion except a snarky snipe.
Jun 27, 2008 - 6:32 am 19. Dick Gonzalez:Why can’t conservatives just admit they don’t like Obama because he’s a liberal?
Cult of personality?
I seem to recall the media referred to Reagan as “The Great Communicator” even though he had only a fraction of Obama’s charisma and was reduced to mumbling and near incoherence in situations where he was without a teleprompter.
We live in a celebrity/sports/entertainment culture. It’s a function of that, not some liberal conspiracy, that Obama’s appeal appears to transcend that of his rivals.
Jun 27, 2008 - 6:36 am 20. Richard Fernandez:It’s understandable that conservatives might dislike Obama for his politics. But clearly Democrats who have a beef against Obama have some other grounds for objection. In Greenwald’s case, he’s objecting to Obama’s ‘drift to the right’ and Olbermann’s failure to notice. But it’s really a deeper issue than that. The underlying question is whether Obama and his acolytes have any principles, conservative or liberal. If he did, then the conservatives should be cheering BHO’s new FISA stance and his assertion that he was always a strong Second Amendment supporter.
The problem is that for varying reasons, some people both on the left and right don’t believe anything he says any more. Or else they are convinced his positions are so mutable they are only temporary locations, if that at all.
Jun 27, 2008 - 6:44 am 21. Harry:NahnCee,
Jun 27, 2008 - 6:45 am 22. Cascajun » Policy pirouettes with artful leaps and turns:Comments about Laura Logan are off target – I think Jim Jackson has a point.
[...] With the nomination locked away, Obama now has shifting views on FISA, NAFTA, and the campaign finance system. [...]
Jun 27, 2008 - 6:51 am 23. Mark:Wrichard wrote:
“In Greenwald’s case, he’s objecting to Obama’s ‘drift to the right’ and Olbermann’s failure to notice.”
Every candidate has to appeal to the base in the primaries and move to the center for the general election. Anyone who has lived through several presidential primary cycles has seen the routine quite a few times. In some ways it’s reassuring to see that Sen. Obama knows the dance steps.
The wink-nudge quality to the Senator’s centering steps is obvious, and Olbermann’s response illustrates that the Senator’s base, for the most part, understands his moves. Revolution is so messy. If you can get your results slowly over a period of time (e.g.European Union, Supreme Court rulings), you can have your cake and eat it too. And then you can enjoy the humiliation of your reactionary foes for dessert.
Bill and Hillary stumbled badly upon entering the White House, trying to accomplish a leftward quick-step, attempting to ditch “don’t-ask-don’t-tell” and create a federally-funded national health plan. I suspect Senator Obama learned something from that fiasco and will take his time, if elected, to build some trust with the general electorate before initiating inexorable leftward change.
The current incompetence of the Pelosi-Reid leadership and the veto power of the President keep such change from happening at this time, but elect a Democratic president and, presto or largo, the balance will shift; and the shift will be towards, I suspect, the kind of policies we heard about during the primaries.
McCain seems determined not to play the two-step, irritating his base. At what point does a surfeit of such virtue become a vice? Pretty quickly, I suspect, in the view of his base.
Senator Obama, unlike McCain, desires to and will probably succeed at showing his good balance. Even if it’s all a stage show.
Jun 27, 2008 - 7:33 am 24. NahnCee:Harry – it’s what Doug does. Get used to it.
Jun 27, 2008 - 9:19 am 25. Doug:
Jun 27, 2008 - 9:22 am 26. David M:The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the – Web Reconnaissance for 06/27/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
Jun 27, 2008 - 9:54 am 27. 3Case::-0
Jun 27, 2008 - 10:40 am 28. 3Case:
Jun 27, 2008 - 10:45 am 29. Jay:I agree with Jackson. The comments in Belmont were generally of high intellectual quality. Fernandez’s insights are still firsts class but I consider PM to be a subpar blog.
Jun 27, 2008 - 10:48 am 30. 3Case:The British aristocracy was a competitive system. Only the oldest son inherited the family wealth other than what was put in trust for the other children.
The public schools demanded discipline and physical competition among the boys. Those who were seen as winners either in athletics or intelligence usually commanded respect.
So what has Hussein O done? Columbia U is full of group think among the left and our system is full of racial preferences.
The media did not make the commoners into aristos in England of old.
This country has lost tis way in a dangerous world. McCain withstood torture in Nam but he is not much of a leader.
Olberman is a dope.
Jun 27, 2008 - 10:55 am 31. Mark:Charles wrote:
” . . . as I recall bill clinton ascended to god like status in the liberal press in 1992.”
and Mouse wrote:
“‘All such passion seeks salvation. It’s only through “hope”, through “moving beyond” that there can be this salvation, this individual transformation. And of course the most immediately satisfying first stage in that transformation is righteousness; one certainly is righteous when one is remarkable enough to recognize that the present is rotten.”
Good points.
The difference between the Bill Clinton and Sen. Obama candidacies is interesting, i.e. Clinton’s mere evocation and allusion to religion, e.g., the “Man from Hope” vs. Obama’s explicit identification with religion and messianism (see the interesting Obama-Messiah website).
It is the assumption of Sen. Obama’s supporters that his religion is merely of a symbolic abstraction kind. Thus even his most anti-religion supporters can tolerate and even celebrate his religious symbolism and language. Being leftists, they understand that the more Sen. Obama succeeds in appropriating conventional religious language and doctrine, the more he marginalizes traditional believers. In any Newspeak strategy, it’s always effective to appropriate the language of your adversary, e.g. the totalitarian “Democratic Republic” of whatever.
Traditional Christians believe they are seriously flawed and in need of a savior. They can aim at a target but they will continually miss it(hamartia), no matter what their degree of skill. And governments (e.g. Tower of Babel) do an even worse job of hitting the mark.
Liberal Christians, on the other hand, believe that the Bible and Jesus provide some good insights and guidelines. Smart people of good will, given enough money and power, will be able to hit the mark, creating programs that will alleviate the misery and error that have dogged human beings (most visciously via racism, imperialism, sexism, etc.) throughout history.
Dr. Dobson has recently called attention to the gulf that exists between Sen. Obama’s Christianity and that of mainstream Christians.
Stay tuned for what Mr. Olbermann has to say about that!
Jun 27, 2008 - 10:59 am 32. Steynian 181 « Free Mark Steyn!:[...] FOLLOW THE GLORIOUS LEADER! “C. S. Lewis argued that the extinction of the individual and its replacement by nothingness [...]
Jun 27, 2008 - 12:21 pm 33. Lilith:Smart people of good will, given enough money and power, will be able to hit the mark, creating programs that will alleviate the misery and error that have dogged human beings (most visciously via racism, imperialism, sexism, etc.) throughout history.
One of those “smart people” was George W. Bush, who grew the US federal government faster and larger than any of his predecessors dreamed by creating a program to alleviate the misery of the Iraqi people, a program to change their system into a democracy and discard the dictatorship that has dogged the Iraqi people throughout their history. This government program was not unlike the one created by Lyndon Johnson where Americans were sent overseas to die not for US interests but for the South Vietnamese.
Jun 27, 2008 - 2:51 pm 34. Alexis:I suspect that the royalist overtones of the Obama campaign are quite intentional. Given recent history, what is an ambitious young politician to think when American politics for the past twenty years has been dominated by two rival houses who see politics as the family business, namely the House of Bush and the House of Clinton? For that matter, look at the power of the House of Daley in Chicago. Or the House of Taft in Ohio, or the House of Brown in California, the House of Sununu in New Hampshire, or the House of Gore in Tennessee…
As much as I dislike how the Obama campaign has become a cult of personality, the royalism of his campaign complete with a wreath of light around his head is probably perceived to be necessary by the Obama campaign given America’s attachment to the culture of celebrity. In contrast, John McCain can come across as downright Cromwellian with his genuine desire to be seen as he is, “warts and all”.
Jun 27, 2008 - 5:35 pm 35. Jonathan Burns:The progressives’ quarrel with Obama is that he failed to stand up for an important principle, i.e. that you do not cease to be responsible for breaking the law when the President asks you to.
The Senator faltered, and his supporters called him on it.
Now, do you know what a Cult of Personality is? It is the dogma that the Leader is always right, and the followers must follow his every turn without criticism.
Exactly what has not happened here.
Please do not use the term “Cult of Personality” with respect to Sen. Obama in future.
Jun 27, 2008 - 7:43 pm 36. Richard Fernandez:Please do not use the term “Cult of Personality” with respect to Sen. Obama in future.
What would you call what Olbermann did, and which Greenwald remarked upon. Not everyone in Stalin’s time was a member of the Cult of Personality. But surely the cult existed.
Jun 27, 2008 - 8:17 pm 37. Jonathan Burns:What would you call what Olbermann did, and which Greenwald remarked upon. Not everyone in Stalin’s time was a member of the Cult of Personality. But surely the cult existed.
Touche.
But I’ve mainly been reading the progressive blogs (from over here in Australia), since I’m on their side. And they came down just as hard on Olbermann.
If you can diagnose a C.o.P. just on the grounds that a leader has some zealots, you’ll proceed to cut up the left into the Cult of Hillary Clinton, the Cult of John Edwards, the Cult of Martyred Kerry, and a mass of cynics who think all Democrat leaders are hopelessly compromised with the tangle of political and corporate interests.
It’s rubbish. The first reason why it is, is that there is no silencing any of these people by threats, real or implied. Criticism abounds, and there are no enforcers. The second reason is that the current left-wing discourse is anything but monolithic.
C.o.P is a bum rap. Please do not use it.
Jun 27, 2008 - 8:51 pm 38. Wadeusaf:But “OH”s appeal is not just that he is a well spoken dark skinned person of likable personality, “OH” has mastered the talk of the movement, with a style that absolutely to swoon for, empty rhetorical flourish topped by a vast untethered anchorage somewhere over the rainbow where spotted owl’s fly and that’s where you’ll find him, soft like a lullaby. GUSH
Kerry was of the movement and was shot down, so too was Gore of the movement but the Vice President couldn’t get it going, and now Obama comes smoother than those others two, slicker than President Clinton (Willy hisself), and able to say nothing in a twenty minute address, with or without tele-promting.
In a campaign marked so far by a so-so conservative candidate with a party that hasn’t taken the lessons of the last election to heart, “OH” should be elected in a walkover. It is right now his to lose, because the Republican party hasn’t gotten its act together, and refuses to see the danger looming in the mists. The band will play on into the night, until the ship slips silent under the waves. I cannot believe how blind, deaf or just plain mule-ish the GOP leadership has become. They are not even addressing the total failure of its legislature to act conservative in office.
I do not hold out much hope to take down “OH” based on his past or current missteps. The Modern American Democrat Party knows full well what he is, and what he stands for and smirk as we fumble trying to have it stated outright. They don’t care. So long as “OH”s opposition cannot convince their own membership that they get it, it doesn’t matter.
Warts and all applies not to John McCain, for he is a wonderfully stubborn SOB that has earned the thanks of a grateful nation for much more than his service record but for all his perceived faults as a legislator too he has been constant and consistent. But the warts and all of the party that is supposed to be supporting him, may well spell an end to his ambitions before August is out. “OH” knows it too.
I am, however, thankful for the Supreme Court this day.
Jun 27, 2008 - 9:03 pm 39. Richard Fernandez:I think it is clear that not everybody in Left worships at Obama’s feet. But it’s equally clear that some do. Yes we can, We are the ones and Vero Possumus all come to mind.
“If you can diagnose a C.o.P. just on the grounds that a leader has some zealots, you’ll proceed to cut up the left into the Cult of Hillary Clinton, the Cult of John Edwards, the Cult of Martyred Kerry, and a mass of cynics who think all Democrat leaders are hopelessly compromised with the tangle of political and corporate interests.”
Nobody said that cults of personality were limited to the Left. They exist on the right; why would it be surprising if they existed on the Left? But they do exist and I think it is reasonable to assert that in Obama’s case it is certainly much more pronounced than any current politician with the exception of Hillary Clinton. A lot of the criticism directed at Hillary in the last days of her campaign essentially revolved around the charge that it was ‘all about her’. In effect she was being criticized for having a cult of personality; and much of backlash against the Clintons arose precisely from the perception that they had turned the Democratic Party into a personal fiefdom.
Far from being a bum rap, the cultlike following of Barack Obama is probably his campaign’s most distinguishing feature. It is one that has been widely remarked upon by his political opponents; and I think will be increasingly remarked upon by people on the liberal side of the aisle. With respect to the idea that there has been no “silencing” of his by threats, real or implied I will answer with one word: Geraldine Ferraro. Geraldine Ferraro’s critique of Obama — and Ferraro is a liberal with impeccable credentials — were met by accusations that she was racist. If you can call Geraldine Ferraro a racist, then who can’t? “How dare you?” was and is one of the staples of the BHO campaign.
None of this is to say that you or Greenwald are members of this type of movement. But it’s far better to see it for what it is than to argue that it doesn’t exist simply because you oppose it. It is because it exists that you oppose it.
Jun 27, 2008 - 9:20 pm 40. Richard Fernandez:I was asked to read about 400 pages of Ron Paul’s speeches, back issues of his newsletters and compilations of his public articles by a friend to form an opinion of what he was. Personally I thought there was something cultlike about his support and said so. I don’t believe I’m unreasonable in asserting there are cultlike aspects to Obama’s candidacy.
One of the reasons conservatives shied away from Ron Paul was this unease. Maybe it’s a “bum rap”, but I think the vibes were there. One would have expected the same kind of “uh-oh” reaction among liberals towards Obama. It is showing up now. But better late than never.
Jun 27, 2008 - 9:29 pm 41. NahnCee:C.o.P is a bum rap. Please do not use it.
Just like we’re not allowed to criticize his racist wife or take note of the fact that he’s got a Muslim middle name?
Gee, for a messiah, there sure are a lot of things about B. Hussein that we’re not allowed to talk about. He must be more of an Allah-like god-figure than a Christ-like one.
Incidently, in the United States we still have freedom of speech. I know that’s a shock to the rest of the world, but essentially it means we can say any damned thing about a politician we want to say … although there might be a tap-tap-tap on your door if you go around saying stuff like “Shoot the President.”
So if a lot of us think Obama is laughable, you can NOT shut us up by demanding, “Don’t say that.”
Jun 27, 2008 - 9:48 pm 42. Mad Fiddler:In 1972 two graduate students in evolutionary biology — Steven Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge — developed the concept that evolution seems to proceed NOT in an imperceptible crawl, but in unpredictable leaps and spasms. They coined the term “punctuated equilibrium” acknowledging the evidence of the fossil record, which seems to show vast periods of unchanging stability over tens of millions of years for many species, with abrupt discontinuities — i.e., new forms and sudden multiple furcations —over seemingly infinitesimal timespans.
Dang. I forgot what my point was.
Oh, yeah. Later discussions and investigations by biologists point to the idea that the mass crowd in an environment lacking substantial challenge tends to overwhelm any of the naturally-occurring mutations, and keep the population stable within a relatively narrow range for long periods.
It is in the isolated valleys and plateaus far removed from the rest of the teeming herds that those natural mutations have a chance to give a few breeding pairs a chance to get a leg up on the competition, because conditions are NOT the same as for the rest.
Sorta like politics.
I don’t think the folks at Belmont are necessarily genius-material.
But because they’ve gone off to investigate up a winding canyon away from the rest of the ungulates, they’re dealing with different conditions, and seeing realities in NEW WAYS.
Sooner or later, the cosmic rays hurtling through the dna of their propagative systems produces useful mutations that will NOT be suppressed by the stultifyin’ crowd.
Thanks, Wretchard.
Jun 27, 2008 - 11:41 pm 43. Doug:“It’s rubbish. The first reason why it is, is that there is no silencing any of these people by threats, real or implied. Criticism abounds, and there are no enforcers. The second reason is that the current left-wing discourse is anything but monolithic”
—
Tell Joe Lieberman that, or Zell Miller.
You will not have a voice in the party if you are openly pro-life.
Gore was but one of many pro-life Democrats that converted to Pro Death in order to be accepted into the house of liberalism.
Stand for school vouchers and see what support you get from the party
—
Wadeusaf said,
“I cannot believe how blind, deaf or just plain mule-ish the GOP leadership has become. ”
JC Watts was on the Ingraham show w/Monica Crowley.
Expressed his frustration with the party’s lame, nay, nonexistent, outreach to conservative blacks.
Jun 28, 2008 - 12:21 am 44. Doug:He was followed by several great callers with their takes experiences with the matter.
Monica talked of some great (black) Iraqi vet running for office in Florida who got little help from the party.
Stupid.
Obama: Arab American?
Kenneth Lamb, journalist of some note, posits an interesting argument to Obama Hussein’s roots on his blog, Reading Between the Lines . Please go here and read it all.
Yes, it’s important.
Add it to the troubling pot of where Obama
Hussein’s allegiances lie.
Obama Hussein, descendant from Arab slave traders.
Ouch. Spin that.
The thing is, the media and the Democrats are touting his “African American” background and using it to mine white liberal guilt (millions of white folks are voting for him to prove they are not racists!) So it stands to reason that we expose his actual descendancy from Arab slave traders – the worst practitioners of racism and human trafficking (even still, even now.) Hardly the “only man that can fix America’s soul” as Michelle Barack keeps reminding us.
BTW, there is nothing wrong with the American soul.
Barack Obama: Washington Post, Chicago Tribune investigations confirm autobiography lies; now asking: Is “African-American” a lie too
Jun 28, 2008 - 1:47 am 45. Doug:Synopsis:
The author opens citing the work of Mr. Richard Cohen of the Washington Post.
Mr. Cohen’s columns about the “composites,” rearranged timelines, and complete fabrication of events in Sen. Obama’s autobiography are the basis for a further investigation into Mr. Obama’s claim to be “African-American.”
ht al-Bob
Obama: Arab American?
Kenneth Lamb, journalist of some note, posits an interesting argument to Obama Hussein’s roots on his blog, Reading Between the Lines . Please go here and read it all.
Yes, it’s important.
Add it to the troubling pot of where Obama
Hussein’s allegiances lie.
Obama Hussein, descendant from Arab slave traders.
Ouch. Spin that.
The thing is, the media and the Democrats are touting his “African American” background and using it to mine white liberal guilt (millions of white folks are voting for him to prove they are not racists!) So it stands to reason that we expose his actual descendancy from Arab slave traders – the worst practitioners of racism and human trafficking (even still, even now.) Hardly the “only man that can fix America’s soul” as Michelle Barack keeps reminding us.
BTW, there is nothing wrong with the American soul.
Barack Obama: Washington Post, Chicago Tribune investigations confirm autobiography lies; now asking: Is “African-American” a lie too
Jun 28, 2008 - 1:50 am 46. Jonathan Burns:Synopsis:
The author opens citing the work of Mr. Richard Cohen of the Washington Post.
Mr. Cohen’s columns about the “composites,” rearranged timelines, and complete fabrication of events in Sen. Obama’s autobiography are the basis for a further investigation into Mr. Obama’s claim to be “African-American.”
I’ve just spent half an hour reading accounts of Geraldine Ferraro’s statements and the reaction to them, including her Fox interviews. For myself, the affair has two distinct aspects.
1. Sen. Clinton repudiated Ms Ferraro’s statements. If she had not, she would have been in the position of saying that it’s all right by her, if her campaign staff say that Obama owes his position to his colour. I hope you can see that if such a statement is acceptable, then it’s available as free ammo for anyone who wants to make a slur on any successful person of colour. “Colin Powell wouldn’t be in this position …” ” Condoleeza Rice wouldn’t be …”, etc. It’s a statement that plays into the hands of racists, it’s beneath the dignity of any public figure, and it ought to be, yes, silenced. Ferraro resigned from the campaign of her own accord, under how much pressure I don’t know. Even though I think she was wrong, she is due respect for standing by her beliefs. I am not persuaded this is because Obama has somehow become sacrosanct. It is because political etiquette, in this respect, is being held to proper standards.
2. The barrage of hate-mail to which Ms Ferraro was subjected was appalling and clearly beyond the pale. Just this kind of vicousness was all through the comments threads in several of the main left-wing blogs I read, on both sides of the nomination contest. I can see how it could be made a weapon for suppressing dissent, for the dogma of your choice, in principle; in fact it must function to keep the poitical communities separate. The problem is, every ugly word of it is free speech. But have you noticed that it never actually succeeds in making anybody shut up? I mean, there was Ferraro giving TV interviews a few days later.
So I’m not convinced, Wretchard. In a democratic society, some speech ought to be reproved. In principle, and regardless of personalities. I’m completely for free speech in this. You say your piece, nobody can stop you, and then you take your chances.with everybody else’s responses. Which ought to be reproved in turn if they are malcious attacks on you or your heritage. Really. July 4 is coming up, light an extra rocket for free speech, I’ll be thinking of you.
Back to the main argument now. The cult of personality is a totalitarian phenomenon. Celebrity is a democratic phenomenon. It is dishonest to conflate them.
It may be I’m making contrast against the fact that in Australia we’ve had a long series of grey men who more or less did what the country needed and the people wanted. But I make my claim regardless: You Yanks are up to your necks in celebrity, and completely immune to cults of personality. Haven’t you seen them come, and seen them go? Don’t you think, the bigger they come, the harder they fall? Has there ever been an American who believed in aristocracy of any kind?
Roosevelt’s in the White House, he’s doing his best, McKinley’s in the graveyard, he taking his rest.
Good luck!
Jun 28, 2008 - 3:32 am 47. Tom the Redhunter:“Please do not use the term “Cult of Personality” with respect to Sen. Obama in future.”
I’ll use it because it’s appropriate. Wretchard is right, there are cultlike attributes to his following. Denying this is silly.
Jun 28, 2008 - 5:44 am 48. Wadeusaf:Could it be that while aware of the differences between cult and celebrity phenomena, we need to certain whether it is the democratic or totalitarian phenomenon we are witnessing.
Jun 28, 2008 - 5:57 am 49. NahnCee:democratic or totalitarian
I would have thought it’s more like a religious or UFO/mothership phenomenon. There are distinct whiffs of Kool-Aid drinking going on as the progressive lemmings try their damndest to drag the rest of us over the cliff with them by freeing terrorists, allowing in herds of uneducated and crime-riddled immigrants, and demanding that we cease trying to protect ourselves and turn into multicultural non-American citizens of the (failed) world.
To me, the progressive left is more of a cult-like group with brains turned off and marching in lockstep towards the abyss, although I suppose in their chosen messiah of B. Hussein they’ve selected a celebrity to follow to their death.
But is B. Hussein any more of a celebrity spokesperson than Oprah? What would happen if Oprah and Bill Cosby and Colin Powell and Mohammad Ali all came out against Obama, and set his politics apart from the race card he’s been playing hour by hour and day by day?
Jun 28, 2008 - 9:40 am 50. Garth Farkley:Jonathan,
You dicuss Ferraro’s statement that Obama owes his position to his colour: “if such a statement is acceptable, then it’s available as free ammo for anyone who wants to make a slur on any successful person of colour. “Colin Powell wouldn’t be in this position…”
You’ve fallen down a slippery slope. If and when the former Chairman of JCS, NSA and SecState runs no one will suppose he lacks credentials. Ferraro’s observation is glaring at us even if we’re afraid to think it. Obama doesn’t have the resume we want when we hire our president. It may not be PC to say race was an important factor, but the issue doesn’t disappear because we pretend it’s not there.
You focus a lot on what people must not say. The PC prescription fails. The remedy for hate speech–or even just faulty logic–is more speech, not less.
To square the circle, race is an important part of Obama’s personality and central to the cult.
Jun 28, 2008 - 9:53 am 51. Jim Jackson:Doug,
Jun 28, 2008 - 10:16 am 52. Peterike:IMHO Obama lacks the experience commensurate with the responsibility he seeks. His resume is way too thin. Do you think that maybe this, his past associations and double-talk are the issues with which to challenge his candidacy? Have you seen a photo of his father? Obama Sr. shows no physiognomic nor pigmentational evidence of Arab ancestry. Millions of Africans have Arab names as a result of Islam. Why would you post this kind of thing here other than to discredit Belmont?
“Please do not use the term “Cult of Personality” with respect to Sen. Obama in future.”
Mr. Burns, my immediate New Yorkish reaction to that statement is “bite me.” How dare you presume to tell me what not to say? Typically Leftist of you, though.
In any event, there are certainly personality cultish aspects to Obambi’s followers, which is not to say they are monolithic in nature. And it’s not at all surprising as Leftists have always worshipped strong men, from Stalin to Mao to Che to Fidel to Mugabe to Chavez. To whatever thug carried the biggest gun and happily repressed and killed people in the name of Progressive Goodness.
Obama is simply strongman-light at the moment (and he has of course promised to stop the waters from rising). And then again, he’s not in power yet. He’s not even officially nominated. You will see, as things move along the dissenters — those people still pushing for Hillary — will be steadily marginalized. If he wins the Presidency, dissent will be largely shut out. It is already.
Of course, no one is being jailed for speaking against Obama. We have far more sophisticated ways of achieving the same goal these days. Already, and from the start, the media has been basically silent on Oblarney’s faults and lies and background. They aren’t investigating a thing. Sure sure, there’s the internet and O is getting completely exposed there. Yet I’d say, oh, less than 10% of the American electorate has the slightest idea of what’s being talked about.
The powers-that-be can live with that grouchy ten percent. The grouchy few have no influence, they have no power, they have no impact on anything. The uber-class, who once stood up for their country, are Internationalists to a man (look at the detestable Bill Gates and Warrent Buffet, to name two billionaires who wouldn’t dream of speaking of themselves as Americans). Obama is simply the Avatar of this class. They recognize him from a thousand miles away. In the very same way that the sight of him makes my skin crawl, for a uber-classer he’s as comforting as mother’s milk. They know instinctively he will go along with them, because he wants nothing more than to be one of them. Whatever it takes.
The truly scary thing is that the Congress is also now entirely controlled by these vile creatures, including most Republicans, at least in the Senate. Bush is partly of their ilk, but not entirely. So they only get some of what they want from him. Though they have gotten quite a lot, as the countless illegal aliens in my neighborhood attest to.
With Obama in place as President, the gloves can come off entirely. The road to tyranny has been long and slow in America, but it has been steady, for well over 100 years now. There have been minor setbacks (the Reagan years) and some attempts to warn the people (as Ike did), but the march of the Left has never abated. Pieces are all falling into place. When the time comes, it can all happen very quickly, as these things usually do.
Certainly, there are hordes of young believers who will happily put on the jack boots to crush dissenting throats. The historical irony is that many if not most of these believers are now upper-class members themselves. The revolt of the proles is a thing of the past. Because really, who in America is revolutionarily minded because life is so bad? Hah. Nobody ever had it so good.
No, they are ready to take to the streets just to prove how much better they are than the rest of us. How much more advanced. How soulful. How loving of “diversity” (is “diversity” the first one-word oxymoron in the English language?). They will rule, well, by divine right. And Obama will be the personality they invest in, because they always invest in a personality. A perfect multi-culti bi-racial Big Brother who flashes that demonic grin while his lackeys cart you off. You couldn’t have written a better sci-fi script.
Am I alarmist? Sure thing. Though I’m not even sure Obama will win. We might not be that far gone yet. But I do think we’re nearing a tipping point. It could go either way from here. And goodness knows all the forces of darkness are pushing for Obama. The Democratic vote fraud alone in this election will be staggering, just wait and see (I’m gonna have to get me some of that walking around money, because there will be bags of it in play). McCain will never win in a close race. He will have to blow Obama out (in reality) to win by a small margin in the “vote” count. I’m not sure there’s enough America left for that to happen.
And those are my cheery thoughts on this warm New York Saturday.
Jun 28, 2008 - 10:42 am 53. Richard Fernandez:Glenn Reynolds is all over Obama’s amazing flip-flops in recent days, and quotes Ann Althouse’s observation that she voted for Obama in the primaries because she knew he wasn’t telling the truth about his Left positions and would change his stance when it was convenient. Then Reynolds talks about the “rubes”:
Quoting an Ann Althouse commenter, Glenn Reynolds puts togethers the concepts of lies, rubes and cults:
There are two interrelated issues here. The first is whether Obama has any principles at all. Althouse, Reynolds and Greenwald — from different parts of the political spectrum — have raised this question explicitly. The second is why any reasonable person, seeing these amazing pretzel twists, would continue to vote for Obama on any other basis other than that “he is the One”. After all, they could hardly be voting for his positions as they change with the calendar, the results of polls and the fortunes of his pals.
Jun 28, 2008 - 12:19 pm 54. Jack Okie:Is anyone else reminded of the movie “Being There”?
Approaching the conspiracy theory level – there have been several items appear on the web lately asserting there is something hinky about Obama’s birth certificate. Perhaps the man put forward as Obama’s father is not?
Jun 28, 2008 - 2:58 pm 55. Sparks:It seems like Obama supporters are all over the internet,talk radio,letters to the editor type media lately. Obama obviously has some top notch logistics people working for him. Unfortunately the specific comments put forth by the mostly idealistic adherents to Obama’s cause don’t seem to enliven the political discourse. Instead, their goal seems to be to pre-empt and prevent any congealing of a consensus among patriotic Americans of a factual appraisel of the qualifications of Mister O to be President of the United States.
McCain is not Bush!
John McCain is a surprisingly erudite man in a populist sort of way. When he actually has a chance to talk he doesn’t seem so bad. What is Dobson’s complaint against him?
Also the fact that “The Powers That Be” are solidly behind Obama bodes ill for him.
Forsake not the Assembling together of the Brethren. Today is Sunday. Improve your church; go to it. If you go there someone like you will be there. You!
Jun 29, 2008 - 3:21 am 56. Ledger:“The first is whether Obama has any principles at all.” –Richard Fernandez
None.
He is only interested in advancing himself to White House. He will swing like a gate when it is helpful to his popularity. He will use the race card. He will use any method possible including acting as a puppet for George Soros – until the money runs dry.
Jun 29, 2008 - 3:54 am 57. Doug:Ledger:
Jun 29, 2008 - 7:04 am 58. Doug:Obama is the Hollow Man.
—
Jim:
That is correct, the ONLY reason I posted it was to discredit Belmont Club
I am a sociopath.
I am also schizoid, and enjoy the net for the exchange of interesting links,
some good, some not so good.
Everyone is free to ignore whatever they choose to ignore.
Dismiss what you want to dismiss.
To argue against unrestricted dialogue, otoh…
fwiw, I have contributed more links at this site than any other poster.
Some good, some not so good.
Such is life.
But hollow men, like horses hot at hand,
Jun 29, 2008 - 7:17 am 59. NahnCee:Make gallant show and promise of their mettle;
But when they should endure the bloody spur,
They fall their crests, and, like deceitful jades,
Sink in trial.
Julius Caesar VI.ii
…including acting as a puppet for George Soros – until the money runs dry.
Interesting that you only think the money spigot runs from Soros’ wallet. I, on the other hand, prefer to think B. Hussein is much more worldly and has been bought by the oil ticks of Saudi Arabia.
Jun 29, 2008 - 9:18 am 60. HotList 06/28/08 - 06/29/08 « The Real Barack Obama:[...] Fernandez, Follow the Leader, Belmont Club, June 26, [...]
Jul 1, 2008 - 11:22 am 61. Belmont Club » Don’t bother, they’re here:[...] position, provides an example of why I described his candidacy in an earlier as largely driven by a cult of personality. The problem, says Talkleft, is that BHO was really selling himself, personally, to the electorate. [...]
Jul 13, 2008 - 1:36 amSorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.