Conventional wisdom, conveyed infallibly by Cokie Roberts on NPR and by scores of others, is that Jeremiah Wright’s recent media appearances – on Bill Moyers’ PBS show, at an NAACP dinner in Los Angeles, and at the National Press Club – are a problem for Barack Obama. Ever careful not to challenge the conventional wisdom, watch for Obama to distance himself even more blatantly from his old friend and mentor. I have a dream, though – that Obama will tell Cokie and the others where to go.
Were he to say forthrightly that Wright is right -- except maybe for one over the top remark about the government’s role in spreading HIV/AIDS in the black community and, of course, for the godly spin that shrouds his otherwise keen observations – Obama would move out of the lesser evil category into the ranks of candidates who are worth supporting with (measured and critical) enthusiasm, and not just because of whom they are running against. But this is even less likely than that she whom Obama is running against will come to the aid of her party by just going away. Nevertheless, the fact remains: what the good Reverend said about racism and America’s role in the world is on point, timely and urgent. If there is a pundit sophistically clever enough to show (not just assert) otherwise, she or he is still slouching towards CNN headquarters --or the headquarters of one or another of its (increasingly few) rivals in the pro-regime propaganda business -- to be born.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Friday, April 25, 2008
Closing the Deal
Ever true to form, the Democrats are about to collaborate with their co-thinkers across the aisle to fund the Bush wars in Iraq and Afghanistan at unprecedented levels. Some of them too are having a hissy fit because they weren’t told until yesterday that what Israel bombed in Syria last year was what the CIA claims was a North Korean supplied nuclear reactor. Not one of them points out the obvious: that the only clear violation of international law in the whole affair was Israel’s aggression against a sovereign state. These are just a few of the latest of a seemingly endless stream of Democratic perfidies. But, for the corporate media and corporate-friendly NPR, it is beyond the pale to take the Democrats to task for any of them. They only want to write or talk about the never-ending contest between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
I can hardly blame them, since I do it myself. In mitigation, I would point out that, though one wouldn’t know it from what media pundits say, the Obama/Clinton struggles do provide a prism through which the larger deficiencies of the Democratic Party become apparent. Moreover, it is an interesting question in its own right why Obama is having so much trouble “closing the deal.” After all, barring some improbable and colossal stumble, he will eventually win the nomination; and the internecine struggle the Democrats are now going through only helps John McCain. I've been writing for months that if Obama is good for anything, it’s for blowing Hillary and her husband out of the water. It’s looking more and more like he’s good for nothing.
Why can’t he close the deal? If recent history shows anything, it’s that in American elections nice guys finish last. I think it became clear in Pennsylvania that Obama is too nice a guy or at least not enough of a scrapper to send the Clintons down to the ignominious defeat they deserve. [True, unlike Bill, Hillary hasn’t killed more than a million people yet. But she did permanently marginalize the very idea of single-payer, not for profit health insurance, and she set the cause of universal coverage back a generation.] In 2000, Al Gore gave up after winning the election; he didn’t have it in him to fight back against James Baker and the other Bush family fixers Poppy Bush had mobilized to install his son in office. In 2004, John Kerry lost the popular vote. But he may not have lost Ohio and therefore, he might have won on electoral college points, just as Bush did (with a little help from some Reaganite Supreme Court Justices). But Kerry wouldn’t fight back either. Obama seems to have about the same fire in his belly; he’s still very much the unthreatening Rorschach Man he was months ago. On the other hand, Hillary, ever a piece of work, has transformed herself into a new model national security, post-neo-con Democrat – a Scoop Jackson for the twenty-first century. In this her latest incarnation, she projects toughness, and she just keeps on going and going.
This would be fine if there were some principled reason for it. But, as we know from the past fifteen years, principles and Clintons are like oil and water. Hillary is fighting for herself; for what she thinks is her due. There could not be a cause less worthy. But at least it does show gumption.
I would venture that it’s her scrappiness, in contrast to the Democratic norm, that’s the basis for the working class support she garners. No doubt there are some white working class voters who won’t vote for Obama because he’s black. But there probably aren’t very many of them, and their numbers are probably no greater than among the vaunted “elites” who support Obama. No, the reason why Obama isn’t doing well among working class voters is that he’s been presenting himself too much like a typical, spineless Democrat. There is not a single, bold program he has offered. He neither seems to be nor is a champion of any progressive, domestic cause.
If only the corporate media and the heralds of goody-goody identity politics hadn’t done John Edwards in! Then Hillary would have an opponent who would at least appear to be fighting for the working class, for all hues of it; not just for inchoate “change.” I’ve voiced the hope that the two Clintonites, Clinton and Obama, would fight each other to exhaustion, and that the Party Elders would turn to Edwards to set matters right. Clinton and Obama are indeed fighting each other to exhaustion, but the Party Elders are too feckless to do anything remotely bold or wise. So we’re left with just the two Clintonites – the one more onerous than the other (for reasons I’ve set out repeatedly – most recently here.) However, the less onerous one, Obama, is a pussycat liberal – a nice guy who, like other liberals (according to Robert Frost), won’t take his own side in an argument. Under Hillary it would be worse, of course, but, even so, someone like that is unlikely to make the Democratic Party better. When Obama becomes President, the Democrats will in all likelihood muddle on from depredation to depredation, just as in recent days -- and weeks and years.
The good news is that, in all likelihood, will become President. For that, thank John McCain and George Bush – not any Democrat. The Democrats betrayed the expectations that led voters in 2006 to give them control of the Senate and the House. They will betray expectations again. But unless that lesson sinks in to a point where voters become indifferent between them and a blatantly greater evil, we’ll get the lesser evil this time around. Against Hillary, Obama may not have it in him to close the deal, and the Democratic leadership won’t dare close it for him. But he can beat out the clock. Then, unless he flubs at levels that would embarrass even Al Gore, and unless he (like Hillary) pays undue deference to McCain’s alleged (actually criminal), “heroism,” he can wait for that doddering, warmongering, Bush emulating “maverick” to defeat himself.
I can hardly blame them, since I do it myself. In mitigation, I would point out that, though one wouldn’t know it from what media pundits say, the Obama/Clinton struggles do provide a prism through which the larger deficiencies of the Democratic Party become apparent. Moreover, it is an interesting question in its own right why Obama is having so much trouble “closing the deal.” After all, barring some improbable and colossal stumble, he will eventually win the nomination; and the internecine struggle the Democrats are now going through only helps John McCain. I've been writing for months that if Obama is good for anything, it’s for blowing Hillary and her husband out of the water. It’s looking more and more like he’s good for nothing.
Why can’t he close the deal? If recent history shows anything, it’s that in American elections nice guys finish last. I think it became clear in Pennsylvania that Obama is too nice a guy or at least not enough of a scrapper to send the Clintons down to the ignominious defeat they deserve. [True, unlike Bill, Hillary hasn’t killed more than a million people yet. But she did permanently marginalize the very idea of single-payer, not for profit health insurance, and she set the cause of universal coverage back a generation.] In 2000, Al Gore gave up after winning the election; he didn’t have it in him to fight back against James Baker and the other Bush family fixers Poppy Bush had mobilized to install his son in office. In 2004, John Kerry lost the popular vote. But he may not have lost Ohio and therefore, he might have won on electoral college points, just as Bush did (with a little help from some Reaganite Supreme Court Justices). But Kerry wouldn’t fight back either. Obama seems to have about the same fire in his belly; he’s still very much the unthreatening Rorschach Man he was months ago. On the other hand, Hillary, ever a piece of work, has transformed herself into a new model national security, post-neo-con Democrat – a Scoop Jackson for the twenty-first century. In this her latest incarnation, she projects toughness, and she just keeps on going and going.
This would be fine if there were some principled reason for it. But, as we know from the past fifteen years, principles and Clintons are like oil and water. Hillary is fighting for herself; for what she thinks is her due. There could not be a cause less worthy. But at least it does show gumption.
I would venture that it’s her scrappiness, in contrast to the Democratic norm, that’s the basis for the working class support she garners. No doubt there are some white working class voters who won’t vote for Obama because he’s black. But there probably aren’t very many of them, and their numbers are probably no greater than among the vaunted “elites” who support Obama. No, the reason why Obama isn’t doing well among working class voters is that he’s been presenting himself too much like a typical, spineless Democrat. There is not a single, bold program he has offered. He neither seems to be nor is a champion of any progressive, domestic cause.
If only the corporate media and the heralds of goody-goody identity politics hadn’t done John Edwards in! Then Hillary would have an opponent who would at least appear to be fighting for the working class, for all hues of it; not just for inchoate “change.” I’ve voiced the hope that the two Clintonites, Clinton and Obama, would fight each other to exhaustion, and that the Party Elders would turn to Edwards to set matters right. Clinton and Obama are indeed fighting each other to exhaustion, but the Party Elders are too feckless to do anything remotely bold or wise. So we’re left with just the two Clintonites – the one more onerous than the other (for reasons I’ve set out repeatedly – most recently here.) However, the less onerous one, Obama, is a pussycat liberal – a nice guy who, like other liberals (according to Robert Frost), won’t take his own side in an argument. Under Hillary it would be worse, of course, but, even so, someone like that is unlikely to make the Democratic Party better. When Obama becomes President, the Democrats will in all likelihood muddle on from depredation to depredation, just as in recent days -- and weeks and years.
The good news is that, in all likelihood, will become President. For that, thank John McCain and George Bush – not any Democrat. The Democrats betrayed the expectations that led voters in 2006 to give them control of the Senate and the House. They will betray expectations again. But unless that lesson sinks in to a point where voters become indifferent between them and a blatantly greater evil, we’ll get the lesser evil this time around. Against Hillary, Obama may not have it in him to close the deal, and the Democratic leadership won’t dare close it for him. But he can beat out the clock. Then, unless he flubs at levels that would embarrass even Al Gore, and unless he (like Hillary) pays undue deference to McCain’s alleged (actually criminal), “heroism,” he can wait for that doddering, warmongering, Bush emulating “maverick” to defeat himself.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
PA Plubs
Ten per cent indeed! Now the Clintons get to boost John McCain for at least two more weeks -- while the eponymous “ism,” Clintonism (neo-liberalism, imperialism, the neo-conservative dream), thrives all the more. Whether or not racism did it, the harpies got their way; them and the papists, still on a roll after Pope Benny.
Note: I just deliberately violated two liberal taboos: not to say anything that can be construed as sexist, and never ever to bad mouth religion. There are harpies out there who find any anti-Clinton remark sexist, just as there are Zionists who find any anti-Israel remark anti-Semitic. I say: if it pisses them off, how bad can it be! Ditto all the more for those whose “faith” (in the preposterous) makes them prissy. In any case, the need to be rid of that wretched family justifies cutting a little slack.
Note: I just deliberately violated two liberal taboos: not to say anything that can be construed as sexist, and never ever to bad mouth religion. There are harpies out there who find any anti-Clinton remark sexist, just as there are Zionists who find any anti-Israel remark anti-Semitic. I say: if it pisses them off, how bad can it be! Ditto all the more for those whose “faith” (in the preposterous) makes them prissy. In any case, the need to be rid of that wretched family justifies cutting a little slack.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Clintonism in Action: Worse and Worser
Today the House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on a resolution (H.Con.Res.322) “recognizing the 60th Anniversary of the founding of the modern State of Israel and reaffirming the bonds of close friendship and cooperation between the United States and Israel.” And, in case that isn’t enough, Nancy Pelosi has reserved time each week through June for representatives to make statements congratulating Israel on its 60th anniversary. Not to be outdone, Hillary Clinton recently affirmed in several venues – the Gibson/Clintonopoulos fiasco in Philadelphia, on ABC News and on Keith Olbermann’s program on MSNBC – that, were she President, if Iran threatened Israel with nuclear weapons (which it doesn’t have), she’d nuke ‘em. Never before has the American nuclear umbrella sheltered the Promised Land. Evidently after November, should she win (which, unless there’s a God in Heaven, she won’t), it would. It is remarkable that something so momentous could be proposed without arousing discussion or controversy. But it isn’t surprising. Who, after all, would object? Nancy Pelosi?
Monday, April 21, 2008
McCain v. Bush
For weeks, the Clintons have been building up John McCain in order to knock Barack Obama down – implying that Obama is not (yet) ready to take on such a titan. Then, since yesterday, after Obama said in passing at a campaign rally in Reading, Pennsylvania, that even McCain would be better than Bush, the Clintons have been “making a federal case” of his remark – presumably because it was too McCain friendly. “A foolish consistency” may be “the hobgoblin of little minds,” as Ralph Waldo Emerson proclaimed. Evidently, it is also no obstacle in the way of self-serving opportunist politicians, once they decide that their only chance is to throw “the kitchen sink” at their opponent.
Will Pennsylvania voters put an end tomorrow to the Clintons’ harmful, tiresome and self-serving petulance? I’m not holding my breath. But hope springs eternal.
Meanwhile, the time is long past due that Democrats stop using John McCain as a campaign prop. The man is a menace, and his past should be used against him. Obama, especially, should stop praising McCain for his “service” to the country and for his “heroism.” Had the United States come to terms with its past in Vietnam, the way the Germans and Japanese have come to terms with their pasts in World War II, a McCain candidacy would be unthinkable. Unfortunately, this never happened; our ruling classes and their flunkies saw to that. Because Obama (and lately Clinton too) are doves on Iraq, not anti-imperialists, it is likely that this time around the outcome will be similar; that, at great future cost, we will not learn our lesson -- again. But, however quixotic the effort may be, for the sake of preventing future harms, we should try as best we can to face the facts. We can start with John McCain.
McCain was a prisoner of war, to be sure. But his “service” and “heroism” consisted in dropping napalm and bombs on a civilian population struggling to resist imperialist aggression. He should not be able to set foot in public without being reminded of this. The man is not just a doddering “maverick” with “bad ideas for America.” He’s not just a hapless warmonger. He’s a low level war criminal who should be held to account.
Still, though, he just might be better than Bush.
Will Pennsylvania voters put an end tomorrow to the Clintons’ harmful, tiresome and self-serving petulance? I’m not holding my breath. But hope springs eternal.
Meanwhile, the time is long past due that Democrats stop using John McCain as a campaign prop. The man is a menace, and his past should be used against him. Obama, especially, should stop praising McCain for his “service” to the country and for his “heroism.” Had the United States come to terms with its past in Vietnam, the way the Germans and Japanese have come to terms with their pasts in World War II, a McCain candidacy would be unthinkable. Unfortunately, this never happened; our ruling classes and their flunkies saw to that. Because Obama (and lately Clinton too) are doves on Iraq, not anti-imperialists, it is likely that this time around the outcome will be similar; that, at great future cost, we will not learn our lesson -- again. But, however quixotic the effort may be, for the sake of preventing future harms, we should try as best we can to face the facts. We can start with John McCain.
McCain was a prisoner of war, to be sure. But his “service” and “heroism” consisted in dropping napalm and bombs on a civilian population struggling to resist imperialist aggression. He should not be able to set foot in public without being reminded of this. The man is not just a doddering “maverick” with “bad ideas for America.” He’s not just a hapless warmonger. He’s a low level war criminal who should be held to account.
Still, though, he just might be better than Bush.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Combat Clintonism!
Nearly a year ago, I began these commentaries on the race for the Democratic nomination with a call to combat Clintonism. What has become clear, over the past year, is that that struggle will have to continue beyond the current electoral cycle. There is a chance that Hillary Clinton’s candidacy will finally be defeated this Tuesday in Pennsylvania. But there has been that chance before, and she is still in the race. The happy day that we see the back of her is likely still far off. But even if the voters of Pennsylvania rise to the occasion, Clintonism will not be defeated. Barack Obama is a Clintonite too.
However the struggle against Clintonism will be abetted by an Obama victory – first, because, at the level of rhetoric and atmospherics, if not policy, his victory would provide more openings for social movements dedicated genuinely to struggling against the awful influence of that wretched family. FDR was no New Dealer at the start; and JFK was, by the standards of the time, a right-wing Democrat. Both of them, however, unwittingly encouraged developments that transcended the horizons of their political perspectives. FDR briefly embraced those developments and even came to champion them; JFK did not live long enough to do anything of the kind, even were he disposed to do so (as he probably was not). Nevertheless, in both instances, things happened that were about as welcome as the capitalism of the time could sustain; and movements were encouraged that put those limits in question. It is far from sure that anything of the kind would happen under Obama, but it’s not impossible. Under Hillary Clinton, it is impossible. Both candidates are owned by corporate America. But Obama might just be free enough in his own mind and capable enough to wrest himself (somewhat) free. Clinton that she be, Hillary is and always has been of one heart and mind with her paymasters.
There is also a more immediate and surer reason to dispatch the Clintons. They and the people they empowered did more to dismember the New Deal than any President before them; they did what Ronald Reagan and his cohort only dreamed of doing. They deregulated with abandon, and fatally weakened our already feeble welfare state institutions. They and the people around them prepared the way for what has come to pass since 9/11 -- by projecting American military power at every opportunity, and violating international law as they saw fit. They and the people around them killed over a million Iraqis through sanctions. They and the people around them promoted the dismemberment of Yugoslavia, encouraging ethnic cleansing on an unprecedented scale. They and the people around them wedded American foreign policy to the interests of the Israeli Right even more surely than their predecessors. The list goes on.
There is no reason to think that Obama will not call upon many of the same people. But, if only because he is not a Clinton, just a Clintonite, he is bound to call on fewer of them, and to introduce different, possibly better, people into the mix. This isn’t much to hope for. But it’s better than the alternative.
In a slightly more just world, the criminals of the Cheney/Bush Administration would now be doing hard time in prison colonies (though not the ones they had built, those having been dismantled, and the ground on which they stood turned back over to the Cuban, Iraqi and Afghani people). In such a world, the Democratic Party would now be settling accounts with its Clintonite past. Needless to say, the leadership of the Democratic Party will never allow anything like that to happen. But the voters of Pennsylvania -- or, if not them, of Indiana and North Carolina and the states and territories that follow -- can at least deal the Clintons, if not Clintonism, a woefully inadequate dose of retributive justice. They can send Hillary down to ignominious defeat.
John McCain illustrates with every foul word he utters that even Clintonized Democrats are still by far the lesser evil. Therefore, the sooner voters dispatch the Clintons, the better. Otherwise, in their hopeless quest for what they take to be their due, the Clintons just might undo Obama’s chances to be President -- and therefore the world’s chance to be free of Cheney/Bush politics and, along with it, our chance to struggle against Clintonism in the most favorable circumstances currently available.
However the struggle against Clintonism will be abetted by an Obama victory – first, because, at the level of rhetoric and atmospherics, if not policy, his victory would provide more openings for social movements dedicated genuinely to struggling against the awful influence of that wretched family. FDR was no New Dealer at the start; and JFK was, by the standards of the time, a right-wing Democrat. Both of them, however, unwittingly encouraged developments that transcended the horizons of their political perspectives. FDR briefly embraced those developments and even came to champion them; JFK did not live long enough to do anything of the kind, even were he disposed to do so (as he probably was not). Nevertheless, in both instances, things happened that were about as welcome as the capitalism of the time could sustain; and movements were encouraged that put those limits in question. It is far from sure that anything of the kind would happen under Obama, but it’s not impossible. Under Hillary Clinton, it is impossible. Both candidates are owned by corporate America. But Obama might just be free enough in his own mind and capable enough to wrest himself (somewhat) free. Clinton that she be, Hillary is and always has been of one heart and mind with her paymasters.
There is also a more immediate and surer reason to dispatch the Clintons. They and the people they empowered did more to dismember the New Deal than any President before them; they did what Ronald Reagan and his cohort only dreamed of doing. They deregulated with abandon, and fatally weakened our already feeble welfare state institutions. They and the people around them prepared the way for what has come to pass since 9/11 -- by projecting American military power at every opportunity, and violating international law as they saw fit. They and the people around them killed over a million Iraqis through sanctions. They and the people around them promoted the dismemberment of Yugoslavia, encouraging ethnic cleansing on an unprecedented scale. They and the people around them wedded American foreign policy to the interests of the Israeli Right even more surely than their predecessors. The list goes on.
There is no reason to think that Obama will not call upon many of the same people. But, if only because he is not a Clinton, just a Clintonite, he is bound to call on fewer of them, and to introduce different, possibly better, people into the mix. This isn’t much to hope for. But it’s better than the alternative.
In a slightly more just world, the criminals of the Cheney/Bush Administration would now be doing hard time in prison colonies (though not the ones they had built, those having been dismantled, and the ground on which they stood turned back over to the Cuban, Iraqi and Afghani people). In such a world, the Democratic Party would now be settling accounts with its Clintonite past. Needless to say, the leadership of the Democratic Party will never allow anything like that to happen. But the voters of Pennsylvania -- or, if not them, of Indiana and North Carolina and the states and territories that follow -- can at least deal the Clintons, if not Clintonism, a woefully inadequate dose of retributive justice. They can send Hillary down to ignominious defeat.
John McCain illustrates with every foul word he utters that even Clintonized Democrats are still by far the lesser evil. Therefore, the sooner voters dispatch the Clintons, the better. Otherwise, in their hopeless quest for what they take to be their due, the Clintons just might undo Obama’s chances to be President -- and therefore the world’s chance to be free of Cheney/Bush politics and, along with it, our chance to struggle against Clintonism in the most favorable circumstances currently available.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Of Mice and Men (and Women)
Last night’s debate in Philadelphia achieved what seemed impossible: it made earlier debates, especially the ones held before the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, look good. Those very early debates were so crowded that the candidates’ remarks inevitably fell short on “depth.” But there were two genuinely progressive, though “unelectable,” candidates on stage back then, Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel; and there was the “populist” John Edwards, who would have been electable had the corporate media not taken it upon themselves to marginalize his campaign. Thus there was at least mention of programs and issues that ought to be on the agenda now, and that would be if the Democrats were the opposition party they pretend to be. With the progressives gone, impeachment, immediate withdrawal from Iraq, single payer health insurance, fair play for Palestine and so on, went unmentioned. For anyone expecting a substantive debate, last night was, to put it mildly, a disappointment.
It was also an embarrassment. Does “democracy” really need all those annoying commercials! Even CNN wouldn’t stoop so low. But ABC would. Evidently, the Mouse (Disney, ABC) saw a chance to cash in on last night’s happenings. They seized the time.
In the good old days, when directors got bored with the candidates’ same old same old, they would turn their cameras longingly on Elizabeth Kucinich. Last night, it was Chelsea Clinton. That about says it all.
Watching the proceedings, I actually missed Wolff Blitzer. Disney’s (ABC’s) Charles Gibson makes him look like an intellectual titan. Gibson’s sidekick, George Stephanopolous, was no better. It didn’t help that the two of them were “fair and balanced” in the manner of Fox News, keeping the first third of the debate focused on the Clinton/McCain/corporate media non-issues of the recent past: Obama’s “bitterness” remark, his not wearing a flag pin in his lapel, the sermons of his pastor Jeremiah Wright, and his relations with Bill Ayers, formerly of the Weather Underground. What was going on? Could the Clintons have promised the Mouse a romp in the Lincoln bedroom? I wouldn’t put it past them.
In any case, Obama was on the defensive. He handled himself well enough. But, for those who still care about substance, he hardly distinguished himself from Hillary Clinton. When pressed repeatedly on the topics the Clintons, the Republicans and the corporate media refuse to let go, he failed again to state the obvious: that Wright’s “offensive” and “inflammatory” remarks were, for the most part, true; and that America’s gun culture and religiosity are insane. When the moderators asked questions that assumed Iran was a “menace” – to the tribal state of the Chosen People, and to American interests generally – he went along with that. As he did last Sunday in the “Compassion Forum,” he vied with Hillary for emoting over the merits of religiosity. He even joined her in praising George Bush’s Poppy. Obama knows better, of course; even the Clintons do. But when there are narratives to reinforce for the benefit of the economic elites they’re working for, and contributions to be gained by pandering to well-heeled constituencies, knowing better counts for squat. Thus, Obama’s positions, insofar as he is willing to say what they are, are very nearly as abject as Clinton’s.
Meanwhile, the irascible (but “maverick”) Bush Three continues to gain ground against both Democrats. Who can calculate how much harm the Clintons are doing just by not going away! Hillary will lose the nomination; and, on the whole, it’s a good thing that she will – if only because an Obama presidency will result in less of a full-fledged Clinton Restoration than a Hillary Clinton presidency would. But the Clintons are putting the lesser evil’s party’s prospects for victory in November in jeopardy, and for what – because they think they’re owed the office again.
Amazingly, the leadership of the Democratic Party refuses to stop them. If the Democrats somehow manage to defeat themselves again this November, don’t expect the Clintons to be blamed. Instead, expect the POP, the Party of Pusillanimity, to gear up again to blame it on -- Ralph Nader.
It was also an embarrassment. Does “democracy” really need all those annoying commercials! Even CNN wouldn’t stoop so low. But ABC would. Evidently, the Mouse (Disney, ABC) saw a chance to cash in on last night’s happenings. They seized the time.
In the good old days, when directors got bored with the candidates’ same old same old, they would turn their cameras longingly on Elizabeth Kucinich. Last night, it was Chelsea Clinton. That about says it all.
Watching the proceedings, I actually missed Wolff Blitzer. Disney’s (ABC’s) Charles Gibson makes him look like an intellectual titan. Gibson’s sidekick, George Stephanopolous, was no better. It didn’t help that the two of them were “fair and balanced” in the manner of Fox News, keeping the first third of the debate focused on the Clinton/McCain/corporate media non-issues of the recent past: Obama’s “bitterness” remark, his not wearing a flag pin in his lapel, the sermons of his pastor Jeremiah Wright, and his relations with Bill Ayers, formerly of the Weather Underground. What was going on? Could the Clintons have promised the Mouse a romp in the Lincoln bedroom? I wouldn’t put it past them.
In any case, Obama was on the defensive. He handled himself well enough. But, for those who still care about substance, he hardly distinguished himself from Hillary Clinton. When pressed repeatedly on the topics the Clintons, the Republicans and the corporate media refuse to let go, he failed again to state the obvious: that Wright’s “offensive” and “inflammatory” remarks were, for the most part, true; and that America’s gun culture and religiosity are insane. When the moderators asked questions that assumed Iran was a “menace” – to the tribal state of the Chosen People, and to American interests generally – he went along with that. As he did last Sunday in the “Compassion Forum,” he vied with Hillary for emoting over the merits of religiosity. He even joined her in praising George Bush’s Poppy. Obama knows better, of course; even the Clintons do. But when there are narratives to reinforce for the benefit of the economic elites they’re working for, and contributions to be gained by pandering to well-heeled constituencies, knowing better counts for squat. Thus, Obama’s positions, insofar as he is willing to say what they are, are very nearly as abject as Clinton’s.
Meanwhile, the irascible (but “maverick”) Bush Three continues to gain ground against both Democrats. Who can calculate how much harm the Clintons are doing just by not going away! Hillary will lose the nomination; and, on the whole, it’s a good thing that she will – if only because an Obama presidency will result in less of a full-fledged Clinton Restoration than a Hillary Clinton presidency would. But the Clintons are putting the lesser evil’s party’s prospects for victory in November in jeopardy, and for what – because they think they’re owed the office again.
Amazingly, the leadership of the Democratic Party refuses to stop them. If the Democrats somehow manage to defeat themselves again this November, don’t expect the Clintons to be blamed. Instead, expect the POP, the Party of Pusillanimity, to gear up again to blame it on -- Ralph Nader.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)