Karma Karma Karma Karma Karma Chameleon
One of the best articles I’ve ever read about Barack Obama was published today in The New York Times.
The article clearly explains how Obama went from a nobody to POTUS nominee is just a few years, and they make clear he has had his eye on the prize for a very long time.
The authors describe Obama’s politics as “the politics of maximum unity”, and this is how they describe it:
“He moved from his leftist Hyde Park base to more centrist circles; he forged early alliances with the good-government reform crowd only to be embraced later by the city’s all-powerful Democratic bosses; he railed against pork-barrel politics but engaged in it when needed; and he empathized with the views of his Palestinian friends before adroitly courting the city’s politically potent Jewish community.
To broaden his appeal to African-Americans, Mr. Obama had to assiduously court older black leaders entrenched in Chicago’s ward politics while selling himself as a young, multicultural bridge to the wider political world.”
This is a fascinating and fair study of a man who is able to win supporters, but discard them when it becomes politically inconvenient, as we have seen with his treatment of Rev. Wright.
Be sure to read the part about his famous anti-war speech in ‘02. The speech was given before a crowd of frothing anti-war activists, but rather than just throw them the red meat they craved, he threw in a little “all wars are not bad” so he could cover himself if the war turned out to be a good thing and popular. This sort of calculation is typical of his rise to prominence.
This is must read because it explains how Obama is about everything and nothing and why he is able to convince so many people that he shares their beliefs and concerns—-even beliefs and concerns that are mutually exclusive.
For someone who calls himself an agent of change, Obama has a lot of political mentors that are strictly old school. To name a few you got Drunk Teddy K, John Kerry, Richard Daly, and probably his closest political mentor Emile Jones, Rod Blagodabitch’s strong-arm man in the state of Illinois. Obama would not know “political change” if it hit him square in the face. The only change he knows is switching back to the failed far left Kosocialist legislation.
Comment by thescoundrel | May 12, 2008
Obama sold his soul to get where he is at. This has not worked against him so far, as HRC could not make his extreme-liberal bias an issue, as that would only make him more electable in a Democrat primary.
Howver, the November election will be won courting the Independents.
Obama, like Dukakis, Gore and Kerry before him, will go down because I’s do not respond as well to the extreme-left - and the 527’s will not be shy in showing Obama’s extreme-left leanings (and history).
Comment by tiger woods | May 12, 2008
Scoundrel, it’s a testament to Obama’s ability to bamboozle the public that he has credibility as an agent of change. He could have started with his racist church, or the corrupt and vicious Chicago Democrat machine, or the corrupt and dysfunctional government in Springfield, but after only two years in federal government he arrogantly claims he can change a system that has been calcified beyond mere party politics.
The federal government is a group of little fiefdoms whose chiefs will not give up their power, influence and $$$ to please Obama—or anyone.
Tiger, the POTUS election will be won on the likeability factor, which Dukakis, Gore and Kerry (or McCain) did not have, but which Obama possesses in mass quantities.
Most general election voters are not policy/political geeks—they just want someone likeable in the Oval Office—although this doesn’t explain Nixon!
Comment by qcexaminer | May 12, 2008
Obama and Nixon are not so different in their appeal to the young voter. Nixon made his appeal towards the youth vote using a get out of Vietnam quickly and with honor platform. He did not do either. Obama is running a similar anti-Iraq campaign. Though Obama at this point in his campaign has not preached the getting out with honor. To move himself more towards Independents he will need to do something similar. Like a chameleon he has changed his colors some when he softened his get out of Iraq now line. But Obama may not need too many Independents. He has followed the Nixon approach by building his campaign around the youth vote. That is the same vote that helped carry Nixon to victory.
Comment by Bruce Banner | May 12, 2008
You may have a point. While Nixon wasn’t personally appealing, he was the “law and order” candidate when rioting in the streets was common, and he pledged to get out of VietNam, although Ford finally got it done.
The Democrats were portrayed as soft on crime (which they were) and Humphrey was seen as being the 4th Kennedy/Johnson Administration (which he probably would have been). McGovern was seen as a doofus—which he was.
But why I mentioned the likeability thing is because I’m just beginning Robert Dallek’s book Nixon and Kissinger and he mentions how out of step Nixon was with other “likeable” POTUS, but that his book will explain it.
Since I’m only on page 23 of a 623 page book, I’m guessing it will be a while before I get the answer.
Comment by qcexaminer | May 12, 2008
I read a similar post about Obama and his tactics used to rise in power. He must have a mighty big power-hunger to try and feed it with the presidency at this stage of his nonexistent career. If he wins, that leaves him no place to climb in the political arena unless he plays dictator and establishes a coup.
. Oops!
This is the link I was talking about. It also contains a link to the Chicago Tribune talking about where the “agent of shame” that promises to clean up politics, foot shuffled when he had an opportunity to help pass anti corruption legislation
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/3/23/21452/2456
Comment by thescoundrel | May 12, 2008
I’m a big fan of TalkLeft—they are leftwingers but at least they are rational!
So yeah, we Illinoisians know all about the toxic and corrupt Emil Jones—Obama’s “godfather”.
I swear to Gaia, I cannot read news about IL politics without retching. It’s all so disgusting and the worst part is there is absolutely NOTHING we can do about it.
Comment by qcexaminer | May 12, 2008
I think another wild card in this years election will be third party candidates. The question will be just how many votes are lost that would have traditionally voted for the Democrats and Republicans to the third party candidates. A larger section of the older public is pretty fed up with both parties. I think that the Democrats understands that this favors them, as the gullible youth vote traditionally voted Democrat.
Comment by thescoundrel | May 13, 2008
I saw where Bob Barr is going for the Libertarian nomination. The more the merrier, I say.
I hope Paul does a third party run too—he has lots of moolah and many passionate followers.
I’m not sure how many votes these guys will siphon off the GOP—it’s possible the Barr/Paul and Nader voters would not have voted for the candidate of either of the two major parties anyway.
As for the “youth” vote—it has traditionally been elusive—they just sort of forget to show up at the polls on election day, but we’ll see if Obama can change that trend—or not!
Comment by qcexaminer | May 13, 2008
Yeah I had read that to, it could hurt McCain. Though I am not sure he has much of a chance against Obama. But I was wrong about McCain earlier as I wrote him off due to his ailing funds before the primary even started, so I could be wrong again.
On a little different tangent I see where there is a rumor that the Republican Party has another video tape being held in reserve to beat up on Obama with. This one evidently stars Obama’s wife. Link below.
http://hereticdhammasangha.wordpress.com/2008/05/17/michelle-obama-railing-against-whitey-with-reverend-wright/
Comment by thescoundrel | May 17, 2008
That’s the first I’ve heard about the Shrieking Michelle video, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it exists.
I read something today about how Obama is going the losers route by blaming Fox News and the internet for why he can’t win in places like Kentucky. I guess he can’t deal with the fact that no Democrat has won the majority of white voters since ‘64—easier to just blame Fox!
Obama is too thin-skinned to be POTUS—any criticism of him is denounced as a “smear” and “divisive”—he’s wanting a coronation, not an election. Sheesh!
If he doesn’t man up soon, the general public will eventually see he’s not the Golden Child— he’s the whiney boy.
Comment by qcexaminer | May 17, 2008