Australians defend Hillary, slam Obama

Thorgrim · 02-01-2008, 12:49 PM

I have watched with intense interest the rise and rise of Barack Obama over the past year. Who interested in US presidential politics (and the whole world should be, given the consequences for the globe) could not be fascinated by the young, fresh, eloquent figure who promised so much?

When Obama won the Iowa caucus, the first vote in the nominating process for presidential candidates, I watched to see how he would behave.

Would he follow Churchill's great dictum: "In defeat defiance, in victory magnanimity." No he did not. In victory he showed vanity and vindictiveness. Vanity in his clear belief that what the flatterers and fans were assuring him was the truth: he was a political messiah. And vindictiveness in his dismissive and arrogant treatment of Hillary Clinton in the last New Hampshire debate.

He showed the same vindictiveness and lack of magnanimity after his victory in South Carolina. The first part of his victory speech was a deeply unpleasant attack on the Clintons. No graciousness there. And how did he handle defeat in New Hampshire and Nevada? With a combination of denial, petulance and the launching of a successful campaign to persuade the American media that the Clintons were engaged in a campaign of lies about him and, even worse, in a campaign of surreptitious racism.

Let's look at what happened.

Obama had successfully appealed in Iowa to an American yearning for change from the Bush years.

Everyone - Democrat and Republican - jumped on the change bandwagon. Clinton pointed out, however, that it's not enough to hope and demand change; you had to be able to define what change you want and had to be able to deliver it.

Obama riposted that this failed to take account of the sort of impetus for change created by great rhetoric of the kind used by John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King. So far, so good. Normal political exchange.

Note it was Obama who introduced King into the debate, on his side. Clinton then made the obvious, and surely entirely legitimate, factual point that King's rhetoric had certainly been the indispensable inspiration for change, but that president Lyndon Johnson's efforts had also been indispensable in actually getting civil rights legislation through the Congress against deep opposition from parts of his own party.

The place went into meltdown. This was said to disrespect King. How could Clinton equate King to Johnson? She wasn't: she was simply pointing out that both were necessary, one to inspire and one to deliver.

Soon her words were being construed not just as disrespect but as hidden racism. Make no mistake: Obama's people joined in briefing the media and others extensively to create this impression.

The Clintons' record on race in general, and King in particular, has over decades of their public life proved unimpeachable.

They have both been champions of the black cause. Yet from that moment on, the Clintons have been assailed (with obvious glee and encouragement from Republican commentators) for allegedly mounting a subliminal race campaign.

It's a tragedy for Obama that this has happened. The consequence has been exactly what you would expect. In the Nevada caucus, blacks voted overwhelmingly for Obama and non-blacks voted overwhelmingly for Clinton. In South Carolina, the black vote was 53 per cent of the total. Obama secured 80 per cent of it. That's the reason for his overwhelming victory there. He won only 23 per cent of the non-black vote. Contrast this to Iowa, where he won a large proportion of the white vote.

Yes, this is a tragedy, but it's entirely his own fault for allowing his manifest shock and petulance at his defeat in New Hampshire to stop him doing the obvious thing. He should have vigorously defended the Clintons from the first moment on the racism charge. By letting it run, by allowing his operatives to encourage it, by appearing aggrieved, the very thing he has worked so hard to avoid has happened: he became "the black candidate."

This same petulance and obvious outrage at criticism is manifest in another key example, one for which Bill Clinton is taking the blame. One of Obama's most effective criticisms of Hillary Clinton is that she voted for the resolution authorising the Iraq war, while he not only opposed it from the start but (and this is crucially important) he had consistently opposed the war ever since. Bill Clinton expressed his frustration that this story of consistent opposition over years was a "fairytale" the media had bought into uncritically.

In fact, said Clinton, Obama in 2004 said he did not know how he would have voted on the resolution authorising the war.

Remarkably, Obama has managed to persuade the media that this was a lie by Clinton that he would correct. He hasn't corrected it, because he can't. The record shows that Bill Clinton was right. Obama did say that. He has not been consistent in the terms he set himself.

Now get this. Obama's defence to saying this in 2004 is that he was supporting John Kerry for president at the time. Kerry had voted for the war and was continuing to justify his support for his vote. Obama said that he did not want to cause Kerry political embarrassment so he said that he, Obama, did not know how he would have voted.

But hold on. Isn't this the candidate who's about change, whose whole candidacy is based on a "different kind of politics"? Isn't this the candidate who says the country can no longer tolerate political spin, that lying in the name of political advantage is what's destroying the country? Yet on the very issue he identifies as the biggest moral issue facing America (the Iraq war) the issue on which he most often attacks Hillary Clinton (the original vote on the Iraq war), Obama effectively states that he was lying for political advantage.

Obama's main claim to fame is that he's a compelling speech-maker. Yet unlike the rhetoric of a Kennedy or King, Obama's rhetoric seems aimless. He calls for hope, for change. Fine, but hope to do what, to change to what? He hasn't said yet. He doesn't seem to know. Shorn of purpose, his rhetoric seems increasingly an exercise in technique and style, "sound and fury, signifying nothing". He says that one of the high qualities of leadership is the ability to inspire by words, and he is right. It's a rare ability. But inspire to what end?

It's a pity. He promised so much.

Stop bagging Hillary | The Australian

I agree, I'll go point by point

Obama does show arrogance, a lot of people on the left, Edwards (formerly) Clinton and other Dems have picked up on..."You're likeable enough" while look down and that tone, as Frank Rich said "was one of his unhumane moments" there are few youtube clips where you can capture it in 10 seconds, but on the campaign trail and other places, you do get that sense that he thinks he's the big harvard law review editor who went on to become the intellectual law professor, and has seen past all our problems and knows how to fix America, he just hasn't gotten to the details...he reminds of Mitt Romney, the flashy candidate that either let it get to his head or secretly thought it all along

He still has that high-mindedness that is going to bite him in the ass if he doesn't chance it, "I am the candidate for hope...details later"

His little shot at McCain over Iraq, does he really think that would work in a debate, McCain would talk about how he was being tortured for his counry while Obama was taking classes at Ha-vard, and then highlight his experience to Obama's and make him look like an arrogant prick for saying he has the "better judgement" overall on foreign policy...does he really think swing voters are gong to listen to that exchange and go "oh yeah, if we were dealing with multiple foreign crises, I definately think Obama is better prepared to handle them, after all, he did give an anti-war speech in 2002"

And Obama did inject King into the race, certainly flaring racial tensions...a shout out to the black community "hey i won iowa, im viable, now if you really believe in Dr King you have to vote for me, simpletons!!!"

Hillary made a good point, you need a leader who inspires, who makes the environment for change, and you also need a leader, even if he is not a great a man, (as LBJ was not as great as MLK) to actually get in the mud and wrestle people...and LBJ used every legislative trick and pressure he could to get MLK's dream into form, that does not make him better than MLK or just as good as MLK, it's just a simple fact, we needed a LBJ, even if we needed an MLK more

But Obama had to start the race crusade over it, as if the intellectual consitutitional professor could not understand what she was saying, no he was playing racial hard ball, but he gets no points for being divisive...He could have called been in contact with Hillary, ask her what she meant, or that she should rephrase her statement, because we all know Hillary did not mean "oh you need a white person to get anything done!" but thats EXACTLY the message Obama megaphoned to the black community, Hillary believes black people can't do anything...he knew it was completely false but he had to play the race card because he needed a big SC win, fuck it if it rips apart the Democratic Party, he understands politics better than the rest of us, so we just have to deal with whatever BS he pulls

Same with the 'fairytale' Obama is being divisive and using underhanded tactics, and everyone looks the other way...fuck, i don't even think 99% of the board can even remember the exchange beyond "yeah Bill labeled Obama some sort of fad"

It's clear now and Obama hasn't denied it after Hillary supporters brought it up days later (he already scored his dirty points so no need to bring it up again) that Bill was talking about Obama being the anti-Iraq crusader...completely untrue

Dennis Kucinich, call him whatever crazy names you want, he's been leading the real calls for reform on Iraq, granted he's been a total failure, BUT HE TRIED, Obama didn't

He pulled the anti-war speech from his website because the iraq war was looking popular (how brave of him), in early 2004 he said he might have actually voted for the war...how fucking more like hillary can you get?

Oh gee, people like the iraq war now, ill take my anti-iraq speech off my website and tell the media i dont know how i would have voted...ill do this 180 so i have a better chance of being elected senator...oh look now its unpopular again, yay i can highlight my first speech

Not only that, but he didn't come to the Senate and start building up movements to end the war, or investigate how the WH or anyone else got us there...he sat in the back row and voted for increased funding for a bigger occupation, how fucking brave! What a man of principle

So how does he respond, obviously knowing what he's done in regards to Iraq the past 5 years...he makes it a big racial issue of a white man putting down the dreams of black america...that's really fucking low, Clinton highlights Obama has a very mixed and weird history on Iraq, and Obama turns it into another race card play

There's more and more, but I've rambled enough...you should see the pictures of that land deal he got with the slumlord, anyone with 2 brain cells can see how benefictial it was to his property and how much he was making a good little scam, it's not "ooops i made a mistake" it was just fucking dirty, and that's the end of it

It's sad that it takes Australia to point out the obvious nature of this situation...just a few examples of how Obama personally or authorizing his campaign...has been playing hardball with dirty politics, that his iraq speech isn't really part of any pattern that's worth a round of applause, and there's even more...but I've made my point, and so has the author

motivez · 02-01-2008, 12:54 PM

Very good article and I agree with it, and it highlights my biggest complaint with Obama.

Publius · 02-01-2008, 12:57 PM

I don't care how valid their points are or aren't, I have to say I don't give a fuck what an Australian thinks of our election and its candidates.

bheld · 02-01-2008, 01:04 PM

Dude, a conservative is a conservative whether you're in the U.S. or Australia. They haven't exactly transcended the race issue either so put two and two together before posting what would be like praise for a piece by Charles Krauthammer or some other right-wing politico weighing in on the Democrats.

Obama has already talked about the "smallness of our politics" which is very appealing and defuses any attempt such as yours to overanalyze the back-and-forth banter that goes along with a long campaign. There at least as much in the bank if not more for character assassination against Hillary and the fact is that people are tired of the Clinton brand of politics.

Donkey® · 02-01-2008, 01:17 PM

Australians? I think I'll reserve my comments until the Ukraine Conservatives check in.

Thorgrim · 02-01-2008, 01:37 PM

Originally Posted by bheld

Dude, a conservative is a conservative whether you're in the U.S. or Australia. They haven't exactly transcended the race issue either so put two and two together before posting what would be like praise for a piece by Charles Krauthammer or some other right-wing politico weighing in on the Democrats.

Obama has already talked about the "smallness of our politics" which is very appealing and defuses any attempt such as yours to overanalyze the back-and-forth banter that goes along with a long campaign. There at least as much in the bank if not more for character assassination against Hillary and the fact is that people are tired of the Clinton brand of politics.

So no matter what character assassination Obama does...it's okay becaue he gives vague speeches about hope

motivez · 02-01-2008, 01:41 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

I don't care how valid their points are or aren't, I have to say I don't give a fuck what an Australian thinks of our election and its candidates.

Dismissing valid points someone makes because they're in a different country seems small and silly.

7960 · 02-01-2008, 01:47 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

I don't care how valid their points are or aren't, I have to say I don't give a fuck what an Australian thinks of our election and its candidates.

bingo!

why does anyone give a shit what they think about our election?

bheld · 02-01-2008, 01:48 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Dismissing valid points someone makes because they're in a different country seems small and silly.

There's a false sense of objectivity involved however. Australians are no more objective about race issues than we are. Trumpeting the words of the Australian Pat Buchanan doesn't make it any more valid than what a neocon over here would write.

7960 · 02-01-2008, 01:48 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Dismissing valid points someone makes because they're in a different country seems small and silly.

people in downtown LA should think the exact same thing about my northeast, whitebread, middle-class opinions of their local election.

bheld · 02-01-2008, 01:52 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

So no matter what character assassination Obama does...it's okay becaue he gives vague speeches about hope

I'm not naive enough to think that any policy matter put forth by any presidential candidate is going to go through in it's original form, so vagueness is really a non-issue. The fact of the matter is that he can lead, people will support him, and he represents something that he really doesn't have any control over. Look at what he does to people. We can dismiss it all we want, which I did all the time when Edwards was still in the race. However you can't argue with reality and right or wrong he has the ability to inspire people. Hillary has been in the game too long to replicate that.

I'd rather have a government staffed by Obama than Hillary. You can take that to the bank.

motivez · 02-01-2008, 01:53 PM

Originally Posted by bheld

There's a false sense of objectivity involved however. Australians are no more objective about race issues than we are. Trumpeting the words of the Australian Pat Buchanan doesn't make it any more valid than what a neocon over here would write.

I don't think there's a false sense of objectivity, at least in my reading. Everyone has a bias.

He still makes excellent points, IMO, ones I've made previously about Obama, but has explained it better than I have.

motivez · 02-01-2008, 01:54 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

people in downtown LA should think the exact same thing about my northeast, whitebread, middle-class opinions of their local election.

If you're knowledgeable about the race and the candidates, they'd be silly to dismiss something you said only based on where you're from

Thorgrim · 02-01-2008, 02:01 PM

Originally Posted by bheld

I'm not naive enough to think that any policy matter put forth by any presidential candidate is going to go through in it's original form, so vagueness is really a non-issue. The fact of the matter is that he can lead, people will support him, and he represents something that he really doesn't have any control over. Look at what he does to people. We can dismiss it all we want, which I did all the time when Edwards was still in the race. However you can't argue with reality and right or wrong he has the ability to inspire people. Hillary has been in the game too long to replicate that.

I'd rather have a government staffed by Obama than Hillary. You can take that to the bank.

Obama can lead is a fact? Why because he lost New Hampshire after being up 13 points? Do primaries mean ANYTHING about leadership?

I don't believe so

As far as strategy/staffing goes...being in the game a long time is an advantage, she's not going to make rookie mistakes when she faces the onslaught of anti-UHC in Congress, say what you want about advisors, one thing you can say is that all president ignore them, sometimes a little, many times a lot...he, like any other leader is going to go "no no no, i want to do it this way" and he's the decision maker, and as GW has taught us anything, its that the final decision maker...makes mistakes

and again, you keep ignoring any dirty politics by Obama as "well gees look at the crowd of people he drew!"...LA has been full of crooked politicians that drew huge crowds

your arguments just keep sounding like "i just FEEL like Obama is cool, and so I'm going to demonize everything Hillary does because her and Obama are fighting, and I'm going to pretend every dirty thing Obama does...didn't even happen"

Politics of emotion, not logic or justice

bheld · 02-01-2008, 02:02 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

I don't think there's a false sense of objectivity, at least in my reading. Everyone has a bias.

He still makes excellent points, IMO, ones I've made previously about Obama, but has explained it better than I have.

His points are all based on his interpretation of body language, inflection, choice of words, etc. It's completely subjective and obviously people are going to see what they want to see. If his comments were so accurate, Obama would be tanking in the polls. Unfortunately this guy's analysis is not consistent with the assessment of the (far more relevant) American electorate.

motivez · 02-01-2008, 02:05 PM

Seemed to be more on the issues of the recent controversy to me, and much of Obama's candidacy is about body language and choice of words, since he's a great speech giver, but is not a policy geek who really knows the issues inside and out.. almost all of his campaign has been about his persona, style, and so forth.. so I think the article has some political acumen despite the guys location.

I don't really care that some other people disagree, I'm giving my opinion and I'm not trying to justify what other people think

bheld · 02-01-2008, 02:10 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Obama can lead is a fact? Why because he lost New Hampshire after being up 13 points? Do primaries mean ANYTHING about leadership?

I don't believe so

As far as strategy/staffing goes...being in the game a long time is an advantage, she's not going to make rookie mistakes when she faces the onslaught of anti-UHC in Congress, say what you want about advisors, one thing you can say is that all president ignore them, sometimes a little, many times a lot...he, like any other leader is going to go "no no no, i want to do it this way" and he's the decision maker, and as GW has taught us anything, its that the final decision maker...makes mistakes

and again, you keep ignoring any dirty politics by Obama as "well gees look at the crowd of people he drew!"...LA has been full of crooked politicians that drew huge crowds

your arguments just keep sounding like "i just FEEL like Obama is cool, and so I'm going to demonize everything Hillary does because her and Obama are fighting, and I'm going to pretend every dirty thing Obama does...didn't even happen"

Politics of emotion, not logic or justice

Politics of emotion indeed. Your whole thread is based on your perception of arrogance on the part of Obama and the emotional response it provokes in your mind.

I see with my own two eyes and hear with my own two ears the effect that he has on the population. That's not debatable. He's got Republicans respecting him for Christ's sake. Compare that to Mr. and Mrs. Claws that never saw a fire they couldn't pour a little gas on. They've been digging for years and all they could come up with was the Rezko case. As you can see it's had minimal effect when you look at the mountain of scandal stuffed in the Clintons' closet. Hell, just the other day we hear yet again about Hillary's time on the board at Wal-Mart (haven't heard? apparently neither have the biographers at her campaign website) and how she sat idly by while they continued to steamroll small business and labor unions.

Obama has plenty of experience in working in a bipartisan way. I have no doubts in his ability to perform the duties of the president. I'd rather have Bozo the Clown as Obama's Chief of Staff than Marc Rich in Clinton's cabinet.

edit: Mark Penn. My bad, I'm getting the names of the skeletons in the Clinton closet mixed up.

7960 · 02-01-2008, 02:15 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

If you're knowledgeable about the race and the candidates, they'd be silly to dismiss something you said only based on where you're from

I can read all I want about the race and the candidates but not living there means I really don't know shit about the environment. My opinion and $2.51 can get them a large ice coffee...tha'ts about all it's good for.