For Hillary Supporters this has been a disappointing year. We lost something very valuable. Because of that loss we have also gained something very valuable.
The loss is not what the Hopium addled chortle about. The loss is not about a candidate nor an election. The loss is of those we thought were like-minded, those we thought friends, those we lost respect for.
In short, we lost yet another bit of innocence. In short, we gained a firmer grasp of reality.
In an earlier generation, when a President was slaughtered in Dallas, a writer of the time said “We’ll never laugh again.” The writer was wrong of course. But after that Mannilicher-Carcano fired its deadly shots Americans never viewed their government in the same way again.
Americans later learned of Operation Mongoose, C.I.A. wet jobs, coups, Vietnam, Watergate, and their not-so-virginally-clean government.
For Hillary Supporters, election 2008 taught us about how ugly our Party, the Democratic Party, could be. The blinders came off, eyes opened wide – sometimes in disbelief – at the similarities between the ugliest Republicans and the “best” Democrats. Democrats we had supported through thick and thin, like Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi, proved to be as adept at double dealing and vileness as the most rancid Republicans.
We also saw how some of our fellow Democrats could be led by the nose in the same way we used to laugh at “mindless” Republicans. There are a lot of lessons learned.
* * *
For Hillary Supporters, the stink of a B.O. administration will not be a surprise.
We will not wake up having to apologize for the latest Obama blunder or the latest Obama flim-flam. We will nod our heads and acknowledge the reality of the great American blunder of 2008. We lost another bit of our innocence in 2008 but we are armed with reality in 2009.
The Hopium addled Obama supporters have a world of hurt coming to them.
Today pro-Obama hack Frank Rich glimpses into the future and sees the reality we began to write about in April 2007.
Frank Rich is one of those writers we used to admired Like many of our former brethren Frank Rich was someone we shared a great deal with. We laughed along with Frank as he skewered the Republicans and Bush.
In 2008 Frank Rich, and many of the writers we used to admire, became like those they hated – like those they once attacked. They were either silent as a great woman was attacked in the most sexist of ways or were complicit in those sexist and misogynistic assasinations.
As 2008 ends, Frank Rich begins to confront the ugly reality he has helped to create – just as much as Republican shills are responsible for the horror that is George W. Remember our warnings of Obama the flim-flam man who is the third Bush term as well as an anti-gay bigot? Today’s Frank Rich Bushwah:
But for the first time a faint tinge of Bush crept into my Obama reveries this month.
As we saw during primary season, our president-elect is not free of his own brand of hubris and arrogance, and sometimes it comes before a fall: “You’re likable enough, Hillary” was the prelude to his defeat in New Hampshire. He has hit this same note again by assigning the invocation at his inauguration to the Rev. Rick Warren, the Orange County, Calif., megachurch preacher who has likened committed gay relationships to incest, polygamy and “an older guy marrying a child.” Bestowing this honor on Warren was a conscious — and glib — decision by Obama to spend political capital. It was made with the certitude that a leader with a mandate can do no wrong. [snip]
Warren, whose ego is no less than Obama’s, likes to advertise his “commitment to model civility in America.” But as Rachel Maddow of MSNBC reminded her audience, “comparing gay relationships to child abuse” is a “strange model of civility.” Less strange but equally hard to take is Warren’s defensive insistence that some of his best friends are the gays: His boasts of having “eaten dinner in gay homes” and loving Melissa Etheridge records will not protect any gay families’ civil rights.
Equally lame is the argument mounted by an Obama spokeswoman, Linda Douglass, who talks of how Warren has fought for “people who have H.I.V./AIDS.” Shouldn’t that be the default position of any religious leader? Fighting AIDS is not a get-out-of-homophobia-free card. That Bush finally joined Bono in doing the right thing about AIDS in Africa does not mitigate the gay-baiting of his 2004 campaign, let alone his silence and utter inaction when the epidemic was killing Texans by the thousands, many of them gay men, during his term as governor.
Rich’s particular interests in gay issues forced him to speak out about the Warren invitation even as he still deludes himself about Obama the anti-gay bigot. Frank Rich for all his intelligence does not want to admit he has bamboozled and flim-flammed for Obama. Obama’s words do “not mitigate the gay bashing of his 200
48 campaign”. Rich retreats to swips about the Obama ego instead of acknowledging that Obama’s pro-gay rights words are meant only in the service of flim-flamming white liberal ears. Rich (and Maddow and Etheridge) continues to bamboozle Americans by defending Obama and pretending Obama is anything but an anti-gay bigot.
Unlike Bush, Obama has been the vocal advocate of gay civil rights he claims to be. It is over the top to assert, as a gay writer at Time did, that the president-elect is “a very tolerant, very rational-sounding sort of bigot.” Much more to the point is the astute criticism leveled by the gay Democratic congressman Barney Frank, who, in dissenting from the Warren choice, said of Obama, “I think he overestimates his ability to get people to put aside fundamental differences.” That’s a polite way of describing the Obama cockiness. It will take more than the force of the new president’s personality and eloquence to turn our nation into the United States of America he and we all want it to be.
Again and again the Hopium addled live outside reality when they think that the great issues are a matter of personality. Americans are divided and many around the world hate America because of our interests and beliefs, not our personalities nor the personalities of our leaders.
Obama may not only overestimate his ability to bridge some of our fundamental differences but also underestimate how persistent some of those differences are. The exhilaration of his decisive election victory and the deserved applause that has greeted his mostly glitch-free transition can’t entirely mask the tensions underneath. Before there is profound social change, there is always high anxiety.
The success of Proposition 8 in California was a serious shock to gay Americans and to all the rest of us who believe that all marriages should be equal under the law. The roles played by African-Americans (who voted 70 percent in favor of Proposition 8 ) and by white Mormons (who were accused of bankrolling the anti-same-sex-marriage campaign) only added to the morning-after recriminations. And that was in blue California. In Arkansas, voters went so far as to approve a measure forbidding gay couples to adopt.
Frank Rich will eventually be forced to express the reality of Obama as we have so accurately described it. Andrew Sullivan and John Kerry sold Obama’s “black face” as the great hope. Opposition governments and terrorists HOPING for our demise will not be disuaded by a black face in the White House. Obama knows exactly what he is doing. Obama is anti-gay and his Warren invitation is not “too cute by half” it is purposeful policy-making.
Warren’s defamation of gay people illustrates why, as does our president-elect’s rationalization of it. When Obama defends Warren’s words by calling them an example of the “wide range of viewpoints” in a “diverse and noisy and opinionated” America, he is being too cute by half. He knows full well that a “viewpoint” defaming any minority group by linking it to sexual crimes like pedophilia is unacceptable.
It is even more toxic in a year when that group has been marginalized and stripped of its rights by ballot initiatives fomenting precisely such fears. “You’ve got to give them hope” was the refrain of the pioneering 1970s gay politician Harvey Milk, so stunningly brought back to life by Sean Penn on screen this winter. Milk reminds us that hope has to mean action, not just words.
By the historical standards of presidential hubris, Obama’s disingenuous defense of his tone-deaf invitation to Warren is nonetheless a relatively tiny infraction. It’s no Bay of Pigs. But it does add an asterisk to the joyous inaugural of our first black president. It’s bizarre that Obama, of all people, would allow himself to be on the wrong side of this history.
Rich proceeds to then attack the courageous Bill Clinton. Obama is a “sweet talking swindler”. Bill Clinton showed leadership on the issue of gay rights at a time when Americans were not so tolerant. As in his column today Frank Rich will use any opportunity to insult the Clintons and felate Obama.
It was not always thus.
Frank Rich is an astute observer. We cannot excuse him as a stupid man for the columns he writes. In the same way Obama’s actions cannot be excused as “bone-headed”. Obama’s actions too are purposeful, if dangerous and deceptive.
Before he was an Obama shill writing deceptive propaganda, before he wrote political columns, Frank Rich was the Drama Critic for the New York Times. He reviewed movies too. One film Frank Rich reviewed back in December 1999 was The Talented Mr. Ripley.
Frank Rich’s review, American Pseudo, demonstrates his intelligence as it is warped by his Clinton hate. Frank Rich really hates the Clintons and anyone he associates with them. Frank Rich will aid and abet any scam designed to attack the Clintons. In 1999 Frank Rich was reviewing a film and expressing his Bill Clinton hate. But we can now read that 1999 review as the American future. American Pseudo is soon to be the American President:
In this age of rampant reinvention when political candidates, entrepreneurs and criminals change selves like quicksilver ‘The Talented Mr. Ripley’ may be Hollywood’s most chilling and up-to-date portrait of our national character.
At this late date in the century — the century defined by the American success story — the two men considered most likely to succeed to the presidency are both running away from their pasts. One, brought up in a ritzy hotel by a Washington political family, has reinvented himself as a down-home Tennessean; the other, a political prince educated at Andover, Yale and Harvard, is now a man of the people in cowboy boots. The man whose job they covet, of course, is the former Bill Blythe, son of a traveling salesman and product of the disreputable gambling town of Hot Springs, Ark., who, via Georgetown, Oxford and Yale, long ago remade himself (for a while anyway) into the Man From Hope. [snip]
Our youth culture is dominated by hip-hop, which has become a means for white kids to reconfigure themselves as black. The god of adult commerce is Martha Stewart, who, like Ralph Lauren before her, instructs us all on how to be old-school white.
Frank Rich was reviewing a film but is there a better discription of Obama than 1999’s “outlaws come in the cameleon guises“? The Talented Mr. Obama:
It’s into this fluid turn-of-the-century America — when even outlaws come in the chameleon guises of Andrew Cunanan and Martin Frankel — that a new, nightmarish and highly apt movie called “The Talented Mr. Ripley” is being released just in time for the holidays. [snip]
With appropriate fin de siecle melancholy and the relentlessness of a thriller, “Ripley” nails both the wonder that has attended our century’s celebratory version of the American dream and the anxiety that is stirred up by that dream’s stealthy doppelganger, the American tragedy that befalls the Gatsbyesque dreamer who goes too far.
“Ripley” asks us to identify with an American man who, like so many before him, believes in the democratic ethos that says anyone can jettison the past, wipe the slate clean and with pluck and luck be whoever he or she wants to be. The earnest, upwardly mobile Tom Ripley, played by Damon, isn’t particularly greedy or ambitious, but he does want to rise above his drab circumstances to grab the right, socially acceptable lifestyle, along with love and money. By the time he takes a wrong turn in pursuit of his fantasy, we’re already along for the ride, rooting for his success and happiness as we might for our own, even if that means we become locked with our outlaw hero in a very dark and solitary place — even if, to our extreme discomfort, we find ourselves, in our secret heart of hearts, rooting for him to get away with murder.
Frank Rich rooted for Obama to get away with a political murder. The hero of the 1999 film bears an eerie resemblance to Rezko’s pal.
When we first meet its title character, he’s a pallid, immaculate young man, with Clark Kent glasses and the fastidious manners of a manservant or corporate accountant. [snip]
“I always thought, Better to be a fake somebody than a real nobody,” Tom says, and no matter what the human cost, including the annihilation of his own self, he will not be denied. Clark Kent wills himself into Superman, but a Superman as ruthless as Macbeth. [snip]
Tom is the intelligent, poor and shy nerd who craves only to be part of the “in” crowd, and what American, from junior high school on, does not know that desperate feeling of wanting to mortgage one’s soul in order to fit in?
“Everybody’s not been invited to the dance at one time or another,” says Damon, who took on the gutsy and demanding assignment — for which he lost weight, studied piano and modulated his vocal pitch and posture — in part because of his identification with the character’s “total discomfort in his identity” and his compassion for the character’s “deep, intense loneliness.” [snip]
When Tom is mocked for his square corduroy sport jacket or his “bourgeois” taste in furnishings or his inability to ski — or is literally left to stand on the outside looking in through a window as Dickie and a condescending society pal or Dickie and Marge exchange intimacies he can never share — it’s hard not to feel the character’s panicked sense of exclusion and isolation, of envy and rejection, his aching hunger to be chosen, to be part of the club, to be wanted, to be loved.
The first time we had an extended look at Barack Obama was as he stood alone in the elegant side lobby, by the stairs, in the Four Seasons Hotel during the Boston 2004 Democratic convention. He stood, nerdishly alone, well apart from the Hollywood stars like Rob Reiner and the fabulously wealthy Democratic elite. He appeared desperate for a cigarette and attention.
The writer of Ripley, according to Rich, said about her character “He could be called psychotic,” “But I would not call him insane because his actions are rational. . . . I consider him a rather civilized person who kills when he absolutely has to.” If there’s “not much to be admired” about him, she added, he was also “not entirely to be censured.”
Obama has come a long way from that afternoon at the Four Seasons. He has displayed a remarkable talent for deceit.
Americans suffered much for their willful delusions in this and the last half of the past century. Our scam artists and scam writers turn American Pseudo into American Psycho.
It appears we Americans will suffer even more in the coming years. Hillary supporters will not be surprised however. We spotted Mr. Obama’s talent long ago.