Every day I am completely and utterly fascinated that more and more people are falling prey to the concept of what I like to call “Noun, verb, change.” The Obama Fog is spreading throughout the Democratic party and a man who refuses to discuss a specific platform and has turned down five separate invitations to debate suddenly has the upper hand. A man who promises hope and change in America but takes an endorsement from Ted Kennedy and spent almost $700,000 contributing to the campaigns of superdelegates in order to win votes is 69 delegates ahead of Hillary Clinton. It’s incredibly easy to make speeches and not have to really hold up to any media scrutiny. When you run a campaign like you live in USA High School and shill out empty promises and print the prettiest posters, success apparently comes rather quickly. At last, the tide is beginning to change, at least in some papers and magazines, but it’s most likely too little too late.
In the past week or so, as people like Chris Matthews have amped up their public hatred of Hillary slash overwhelming bias towards Barack, papers like the Post and the NY Times are beginning to turn on this blind following of what Matthews has referred to as “The New Testament” (see Charles Krauthammer). The Cult of Obama is finally having some scrutiny applied to it and the results aren’t too pretty. Here are some excerpts from recent op-ed pieces concerning the rampant fever of that man from Illinois.
“Obama says he is practicing a new kind of politics, but why has his PAC sloshed $698,000 to the campaigns of the superdelegates, according to the Center for Responsive Politics? Is giving Robert Byrd’s campaign $10,000 the kind of change we can believe in?”
“The contrast between his broad rhetoric and his narrow agenda is stark, and yet the media — preoccupied with the political “horse race” — have treated his invocation of “change” as a serious idea rather than a shallow campaign slogan. He seems to have hypnotized much of the media and the public with his eloquence and the symbolism of his life story. The result is a mass delusion that Obama is forthrightly engaging the nation’s major problems when, so far, he isn’t.”
“And yet there was something just a wee bit creepy about the mass messianism — “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for” — of the Super Tuesday speech and the recent turn of the Obama campaign…Rather than focusing on any specific issue or cause — other than an amorphous desire for change — the message is becoming dangerously self-referential. The Obama campaign all too often is about how wonderful the Obama campaign is.”
“Obama has an astonishingly empty paper trail. He’s going around issuing promissory notes on the future that he can’t possibly redeem.”
“I won’t try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody. I’m not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality.”
I think the articles speak for themselves. My faith in the objective integrity and downright intelligence to see through the smoke and mirrors of the media bullshit has all but been torn to shreds. I only hope that the truth can win out in Texas and Ohio and the rightful nominee can pursue the office of President in November.
If you listen to O-bots, the senator from Illinois can and will beat McCain in a national election, but the opposite is glaringly apparent. Not only does Obama have a lot to answer to that hasn’t been addressed nationally, but the Republicans are notoriously vicious in their campaign attacks. Obama will have to respond to the true allegations of his cocaine and marijuana use and, in some cases, dealing. He will have to defeat the story that no one but the Chicago Tribune seems to care about – his bankrolling by the likes of Tony Rezko. He will have to discuss his shady track record of voting present instead of for or against major issues. Obama will, when facing McCain, have to address the fact that he listed Reagan as a hero, or that in 2004, he pulled down his speech against Iraq off of his personal website and said that he basically had no problem with the agenda or policy of Bush. When it was popular to support Bush, Obama was all for it; now that the pressure has significantly shifted, he aggressively shakes that speech in front of the nation over and over again, as if it was the only thing he ever accomplished. It’s as if being against the war in Iraq before he was ever voted into the Senate is some sort of major accomplishment in itself.
Speaking of “accomplishments,” I leave you with something that I feel encapsulates the campaign of Barack Obama. I only find it ironic that the man who almost cried in response to the concept of Obama losing (youtube it, seriously) is the one who attacked the Obama supporter. This exchange is laughable in every possible way.
Below are the articles referenced with each excerpt. Please feel free to read them: