Sounds like an exaggeration, doesn’t it? But I’m not so sure. He and his cronies have already made mince-meat of the so-called Clinton machine, and we know Bill is no slouch in this regard.
No, Obama gets the nod for several reasons, not the least of which is he has been able to hide so brilliantly under the mantle of “new politics” when his style is as old as Boss Tweed and as monolithic as the Mayors Daley from his hometown of Chicago. But he’s done Tweed and the Daleys one better because he’s got the nitwits in the national press eating out the palm of his hand as well. Those bozos bought into the Politics of Hope crapola from the get-go. Obama can go around accusing McCain of hobnobbing with lobbyists, being a warmonger, you name it, and they lap it up. Meanwhile they wouldn’t dare print anything nasty about Barack, even when it bites them in the foot. Can you imagine what chance McCain would have if he had spent twenty years in a racist minister’s church and then titled his book after a sermon from the minister? McCain would have had to retire to Fiji, but Obama is running for President, decimating his opposition. Has there ever been a more brilliant, machine-like political move than that? And now there’s the implication that Obama’s campaign manager might have been…ohmygosh… a lobbyist in good old Chi-town? How much mileage is that going to get in the MSM? Think it’s going to make it to the front page of the NYT along with story about McCain’s putative girl friend? I wouldn’t hold my breath, but I might my nose.
[Maybe we should start calling Obama "The Machine."-ed. No. Absolutely not. A desecration. That moniker is reserved for the one and only Sasha Vujacic... unless he loses tomorrow.]
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.
14 Comments
1. TerryeL:Oh yeah, Obama is a politician..tried and true.
Why just yesterday he was out on the campaign trail yammering on about how McCain does not like veterans. Never mind the fact that McCain actually is a veteran. Obama makes this claim because of McCain’s opposition to Webb’s GI bill.
Listening to him one almost gets the feeling that he hopes a GI bill will not pass. He is getting too much mileage out of politicizing it. Truth is Bush called for a new GI bill in his last State of the Union address. He even mentioned certain guidelines, such as transferability and a sliding scale for benefits. He also said no pork. He also said do not tack it on an a funding bill. So what do the Democrats do?
They block McCain’s bill and do all the things Bush said not to do. That way he can veto the bill or cave and they can either over ride the veto or claim that Republicans hate veterans. It is the same tact they used with the farm bill. This way Obama can get a helping hand with the vets and rural people, two groups he does not do so well with.
And there is Obama doing his hope and change for the people on Memorial Day, just another opportunity to play politics with the future of America.
I am not a Hillary fan, but at least with the Clintons you know what you are getting. Obama strikes me as a demagogue and a fraud. And his party is in the majority right now, so that means they can help him snow the people.
And needless to say he has the help of a supine press.
May 27, 2008 - 4:11 am 2. Henry Bowman:Yesterday the Obamanation did what few others can do: he claimed to see fallen soldiers in the crowd to whom he was speaking! Pretty cool, I’d say. Without a teleprompter, his speeches are rather lame.
Seriously, the guy is a complete fraud; even the personal history that his campaign provides is largely fiction. Not merely an empty suit, but a person about whom we actually know very little, other than his sparse [left-wing] voting record.
May 27, 2008 - 6:56 am 3. A B:I think Obama’s a great machine politician not in his tactics but in his life strategy: Born of mixed-race parentage into a radical-leftist upbringing he saw the advantages of going hard-left, identifying with his black heritage, talking about transcending race, and taking advantage of liberal guilt. These strategic moves make his tactical choices a lot easier, as the National Press is primed to support him. But he is lucky to be a part of this age, as healso benefits from those who deeply hate and are embarrassed by George Bush, for whom Obama is a reedeming figure, basically because of the color of his skin and polycultural background. To the Left, he is a living representation of the United Nations and his election to the Presidency will, in their eyes, bring about world-government. He would have to be three kinds of stupid to not take advantage of this.
He benefits from a well run campaign, but dollars to donuts, it’s probably his wife who’s actually handling things, given that she actually has a resume with work listed, rather than his resume which is a list of election successes.
May 27, 2008 - 7:35 am 4. Jamie Irons:Terrye,
As usual your comment is highly intelligent. I hope you are well.
This election really depresses me. It appears to me that Obama is going to handily defeat McCain. All the stars are aligned in the Democrats’ favor and, in contast to what happened with Kerry, I think the MSM’s being in the tank for Obama is going to pay off for the latter. Because he is so “transformational” and all, they can lie, and cover things up, with a clear conscience, and are less likely to trip themselves up.
Lest anyone misinterpret my remarks about Obama, I actually supported him at first, when I was naive enough to believe that he did represent an opportunity for “change” (I thought it would be good for the country to have a black president), and I even sent him money and voted for him in the California primary. But that was before I knew anything concrete about him, before the “blessed reverend,” and all.
Jamie Irons
May 27, 2008 - 8:53 am 5. Lem:So you telling me that the guy who runs the Obama campaign had a client lobby Obama two years ago and contribute to Obama almost a quarter of a million dollars?
Naah, there is no story there
May 27, 2008 - 9:36 am 6. Lem:Clearly you cannot say the guy was a lobbyist if he never registered.
There is no Jack Abramoff here. The guy never registered.
It’s a Sopranos ‘no show’
May 27, 2008 - 10:08 am 7. TerryeL:Jamie:
I am hanging in there. Do not underestimate McCain or over estimate Obama. He might be hot stuff in California, but I live in one of those states where he could not beat Hillary, much less John McCain.
Time will tell, but this guy should be further ahead right now than he is. And anything can happen.
May 27, 2008 - 12:19 pm 8. TerryeL:Just a couple of days ago I saw that McCain was ahead in both the Gallup and Rasmussen tracking polls. And some analysts give McCain an advantage in the electoral count. It is way too soon to tell, but it seems to me that Obama should be way ahead right now, and he isn’t. I think a lot of people have questions about him, press or no press.
But that does not mean he will not win.
May 27, 2008 - 12:24 pm 9. Buddy Larsen:what, y’all don’t want the Reverend Wright as your Secretary of State? Bill Ayres as Secretary of Defense? Achmadinejad, Chavez, and Castro sleeping over in the Lincoln Bedroom? Party Poopers.
May 27, 2008 - 3:27 pm 10. ras:The nature of Obama’s many gaffes indicate a man insufficiently adept to accomplish what you accuse him of, Roger. A better explanation is that he is merely the chosen frontman/face for those who run him.
May 27, 2008 - 4:29 pm 11. Roy Lofquist:Dear Sirs,
I have been following politics for a while. Since 1952. I have never seen the conventional wisdom about an election more baseless.
Why Obama? Charisma, ideas, hope? None of these or any other reasons that have been bandied about. It’s Obama because he is not Hillary.
The Clintons embarrassed the Democratic Party. Many, many Democrats were ashamed of their President. They do not want to see Billary in the White House ever again, even as visitors. Note that Obama won in the caucus states where the politically active determine the outcome.
A Democratic year? How do you figure? Because the New York Times says so? Look at 2006! Yes, let’s look at it. In the preceding 6 midterm elections where the incumbent President’s party lost seats the average loss in the Senate was 6.1, in the House 29.33. In 2006 the Republicans lost 7 in the Senate and 30 in the House. Pretty ho-hum.
Let’s look at the Democratic Presidents.
JFK and Nixon tied in the popular vote, even though Nixon was extremely unpopular.
LBJ beat Goldwater in 1964. Kennedy had been assassinated, we were in the middle of a war and Goldwater was a radical.
Carter beat Ford in 1980. Nixon had resigned because of Watergate and Ford was an appointed Vice President.
Clinton beat GHWB in 1992 with only 37% of the vote. Ross Perot got 19% which, arguably, was 60-70% Republicans.
It seems that Democrats only win in extreme circumstances.
In our history we have seen stretches where one party controlled Congress that average about 30 years with occasional one-term reversals.
From where I’m sitting it doesn’t look at all like a Democratic year.
Regards,
Roy Lofquist
May 28, 2008 - 2:14 pm 12. Demosophist:I still can’t believe nothing at all was made of his “58 states in the union” gaff. It was mentioned once on FOX that I know of, and nowhere else. Can you imagine such a thing happening to McCain… or anyone else, including Hillary? And no fair mentioning his middle name, or saying anything remotely relevant concerning his wife’s rhetorical attacks. Camelot vs Mudville could be a rather one-sided contest.
May 29, 2008 - 5:35 pm 13. Demosophist:Roy:
Point taken about the 30-year cycle. If we figure the current Republican cycle began in 1994 (with a few ups and downs) it still has about a decade left in the tank. However, the Republicans have been particularly foolish about squandering their advantages. The biggest thing the Republicans have going for them is that there really don’t seem to be any new ideas hatching in the opposition’s nest.
Meanwhile yet another central European country orbits the flat tax.
May 29, 2008 - 5:52 pm 14. Demosophist:Er, pardon my finger-counting. The better part of two decades.
May 29, 2008 - 5:56 pm