How To Destroy The Tea Party Movement

It’s not really difficult to figure out how to destroy the Tea Party Movement. There are tried and true methods for doing so.

One stupid way to try to destroy a movement such as the Tea Party Movement is some type of CoIntelPro activity by the state. This type of activity will likely not be successful against the Tea Party movement. Barack Obama Thugs (hereinafter B.O.T.s) already tried such a technique and it blew up in their face. These B.O.T.s announced via their networks and websites their intention to infiltrate Tea Party rallies and pollute them with racist signs meant to discredit the entire movement. Now, if any genuine bigot appears at a Tea Party rally to “support” the movement, said bigot will be assumed to be a B.O.T.

Because of the bumbling B.O.T.s, a CoIntelPro plan of subversion by state authorities will likewise be discredited because canny organizers are now aware, if they ever had any doubts, that they are targets of an organized attempt at disruption. As we noted in Terror From The Stalinist Left B.O.T.s have been active for years in slimy attempts to smear Hillary Supporters and anyone who violates the sensibilities of the Cult of Obama.

These B.O.T.s, because of their own hubris, after years of successfully smearing opponents with these underhanded tactics in a much more secret manner, went public with their smear attempts against the Tea Party movement and in the process have given those of us who have been smeared a vivid example of the type of persons which populate the B.O.T. dens.

We Hillary Supporters and those of us who consider ourselves real Democrats (not Obama Dimocrats), progressives, liberals, members of the Democratic Left and Democratic center and those Americans of whatever political stripe – who believe in free speech and allowing our opponents the right to disseminate their views without interference or infiltration attempts, owe Sarah Palin at the very least a hearty thank you. Sarah Palin persisted in the case against the B.O.T. son of a Dimocratic operative who hacked into her email account and caused all sorts of havoc and misery. We hope the successful Palin prosecution of this B.O.T. will serve as a warning to other B.O.T.s who plot to distort the views of others and to slime and smear opponents.

The absolutely best way to destroy the Tea Party Movement is another type of infiltration: co-opt the movement. The Republican establishment is already on the job with this tactic. Thus far the Tea Party has not been co-opted by the Republican Party but not for lack of trying. A great deal of the Tea Party is in agreement with Republican policies but they know how slimy and untrustworthy Republicans in office can be. It is a lesson real Democrats know about their own party as well.

How successful and deadly is a policy of co-option? Let’s take a quick look at how deadly effective this tactic is, with an examination of groups co-opted by the Dimocratic establishment. We’ve written about how mainline organizations for Women, Gays, and to a lesser extent, Jews, no longer serve the interests of their constituency because they have been co-opted by the Dimocratic establishment. We have shouted “Wake Up! to the Women, Gays, and Jews who are asleep and believe these big dinosaur organizations represent their interests.

These targeted population groups, betrayed by their leadership due to cronyism or incompetence or cowardice (often all three), are Gays, Women, and Jews. Our message to Gays, Women, and Jews is: WAKE UP! – Demand the leadership in your communities confront Obama forcefully.

This week provided addition examples of how right we have been. Recall how we laughed at that “ardent environmentalist” who mewled for “statements of annoyed disappointment” when Obama announced his earlier, but not latest, flip-flop flim-flam on oil drilling? We’ve laughed ourselves silly at the Gay Fools, Straight Fools, Black Fools, White Fools whose love for Obama mattered more than the issues they say are important to them. But like their idol, Barack Obama, their actions betray their words.

This week we have witnessed the Obama gardens of treachery flower as never before. Gay Americans were typically the most blatantly stabbed in the back by Barack Obama. It was so bad that even co-option central, the Human Rights Campaign, mewled out a statement of whiny complaint:

“Today’s letter from Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen to House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton flies in the face of the President’s commitment in the State of the Union address to work with Congress to repeal the discriminatory “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law this year. If the President is going to fulfill his promise it is essential that he address this contradiction immediately. It is inconceivable that the Secretary of Defense would so blatantly undermine the Commander-in-Chief’s policy commitment.”

These people are so stupid, they deserve at this point all the misery and treachery they get. Gay-Americans who do not realize that Obama hates Gay people deserve all the misery and humiliation they get. Act like a doormat, be treated like a doormat.

Other Gay doormat organizations issued statements of “annoyed disappointment” about the latest Obama treachery (don’t doubt he is behind the Gates letter). The latest Gay beating is so bad that even the co-opted clowns at NothingLeft admit that Obama just does not like Gay people. But these co-opted clowns will continue to raise money for Obama Dimocrats, attack Obama Dimocrats’ opponents, and prove themselves in every way they are useless, co-opted, whores.

Liberals who continue to support Obama Dimocrats are also a good example of how devastating the tactic of co-opting a movement is. Obama this week laughed, mocked, and wiped his feet on these co-opted liberal clowns as well:

“In a seeming rejection of liberal orthodoxy, President Obama has spoken disparagingly about liberal victories before the Supreme Court in the 1960s and 1970s — suggesting that justices made the “error” of overstepping their bounds and trampling on the role of elected officials.”

How stupid are Obama supporting liberals; how stupid are Obama supporting Gay Americans?; just how stupid are Obama supporters? They are either very, very, very, stupid or they are so co-opted that ordinary measures of stupidity cannot even survey the universe of stupidity they inhabit.

And the level of co-opted inhabitants of the stupidity universe is about to grow even larger. Today is May Day and immigration rights rallies, utterly co-opted by Obama Dimocrats, will be on the march. Everyone knows there will be no immigration legislation passed this year because even Barack Obama has admitted it. But the Dimocratic Party will pretend to care about immigration issues in order to scare up votes. Nothing will actually be done, but a lot of flowery words and some blood will be spilled. Today’s immigration rights’ rallies are already completely co-opted by Obama Dimocrats.

In 2006 Barack Obama was all for Arizona type requirements on illegal immigration.

But that was then. Now the imperative is to pump up the vote. So, even though he intends to do nothing, Obama will attempt to conquer – with talk. Fools who believe in Obama will believe him on immigration rights too. But nothing will be done. Nothing will “change”. The newly revised Arizona law will withstand legal challenges especially now that Governor Brewer’s earlier objections have been addressed.

Today’s immigrations rights rallies will conflate legal and illegal immigration issues in order to confuse. As we have written before, the immigration issue is now only a tactic for Obama Dimocrats to pump up their vote in the November elections. Labor unions can make a strong argument that increased immigration – both legal and illegal – keeps wages down and is a tactic by big business to break the backs of workers. But labor unions will not make this argument because they have been co-opted by the Dimocratic Party of Barack Obama. Labor unions will keep silent on the effects of increased immigration and wages. The workers will not even hear this aspect of the debate. Labor unions, co-opted by the Dimocratic Party will not voice even the slightest questions about how increased immigration can hurt workers.

Another bit of news which will be downplayed at today’s immigration rights rallies will be any type of violence or rowdy behavior. Big Media spot lights on violence or rowdy behavior or anti-government signs, or bigotry, or calls for violations of law are reserved for the Tea Party movement. Tea Party Grandmas protesting Obama will be targeted by swat teams but today’s rallies will be exempt from examination. Border problems with smugglers/criminals will also be mostly ignored.

There will be little to no Big Media examination of any violence or rowdy behavior at today’s rallies because that would be “racist”. Shouting “racist” is another failed tactic to destroy the Tea Party Movement.

D.K. Jamaal recently encapsulated the case of the “N” word:

“A recently unveiled video proves Tea Party protestors did not, in fact, launch the n-word at Democratic congressmen during the Tea Party protests on the day the Congress passed the health non-reform scam.

Somebody, it appears, owes the tea partiers an apology for smearing them as racist.[snip]

Corporate media reports by outlets such as Washington Post and Huffington Post repeated and propagated the false claim that tea partiers used the n-word on the day in question, slamming tea partiers for their alleged bigotry.

Conservatives, led by right-wing firebrand Andrew Breitbart, demanded proof. After all, there were tons of journalists and amateur videographers at the event.

To date, no video has surfaced proving the n-word claim. Indeed, this video finally proves those claims false.

It shows – as Post-Partisan Examiner wrote weeks ago – that the real racists are the Tea Party’s race baiting opponents. It is pitiful and shameful.

That video, which exposes the lie about the dreaded “N” word’s non use at the Tea Party rally in question, only hints at why shouts of “racism” will not hurt, nor destroy the Tea Party Movement. Quite the contrary. For a more explicit set of reasons we turn to (gasp!) the New York Times.

This past week, in the “blogginheads” section, two African-American men discussed the Tea Party movement. John McWhorter of the conservative Manhattan Institute and self-described “black progressive” Professor Glenn Loury (Social Sciences as well as Economics at Brown University; formerly at Boston University’s Institute on Race and Social Division) made a strong argument (approximately 6 minutes into the video) as to why “racist” charges will not destroy, but rather enhance the Tea Party Movement:

McWhorter ponders the question of whether the Tea Party Movement is “racist”. After a long-winded but interesting (we’re big fans of 1960s civil rights activist Bob Moses and even bigger fans of Diane Nash, who at the height of the movement fought the sexism of black men in the in the civil rights movement) response the two men tackle the question and fears (about 10:30 into the video) of potential Tea Party racism. “Are they racists?” asks McWhorter.

McWhorter, arguendo, accepts that the notion that the “N” word was used by Tea Party members. Which leads to Loury’s assessment. Loury states (at 16:40) that calling Tea Party activists “racists” and “idiots” (for believing Obama is not a natural born American, and for being against government involvement in government run Social Security/Medicare) is counterproductive. Loury states that if he were a leading Tea Party strategist it would

be a godsend to have the talking heads at MSNBC or in the op-ed pages of the places calling my people “stupid” and “racists”. Because they are not “stupid”, by and large, and they are not “racists” [snip] and so to have the people with control over the high points of the cultural terrain who are dyed-in-the-wool left of center politically, to call them that, just kind of reinforces their identity as estranged from those sites of cultural power and righteous in their indignation and their alienation from the government. Which is not what you want if you are trying to minimize their political impact.”

Loury adds “So, am I crazy or are we shooting ourselves in the foot to a certain extent by laughing in these people’s faces while they organize?

Loury is not crazy, and McWhorter actually declares that even with all the contradictions and inchoate demands of the Tea Party Movement, they seek coherence and are rational.

McWhorter then hits, right on target how to destroy the Tea Party Movement. McWhorter says “We should listen to what these people are saying.”

That’s the way to destroy the Tea Party Movement. Listen to them. Treat them with respect. Seek to understand. That advice is valid, not because we are bleeding heart liberals, but because “they” are voters. And Gordon Brown (it wasn’t Mexican immigrants that prompted the debate on immigration in Britain) in Britain now understands that calling voters bigots because they ask questions is a very stupid thing to do if you want to build a political party.

B.O.T.s and Obama are flapping about these days trying to get votes. They have lost some of the strongest activists because they are thugs. Peggy Noonan, a Hillary Hater from way back and a HillaryIs44 attacker, in her own way is beginning to understand what is happening in the political landscape and how Obama has transformed, into a dead wreck, the once great Democratic Party. Noooooonan writes:

“This is not the old, conservative and long-lampooned “I don’t trust gummint” attitude of the 1950s, ’60s and ’70s. It’s something new, or rather something so much more broadly and fully evolved that it constitutes something new. The right never trusted the government, but now the middle doesn’t. I asked a campaigner for Hillary Clinton recently where her sturdy, pantsuited supporters had gone. They didn’t seem part of the Obama brigades. “Some of them are at the tea party,” she said.”

All Hillary supporters might not be at the Tea Party, but very few of us are drinking Kool-aid. That Hopium laced concoction kills.

Transformative Obama has made one indisputable transformation in cement:

“Democrats have glimpsed their biggest threat this fall, and she is Grandma.

One reason President Barack Obama and other party leaders are rolling out campaigns this week to energize young and minority voters for November’s elections is that they’ve seen the polling data on senior citizens, and it’s ugly.”

In short, Grandma is at the Tea Party with some Hillary supporters and all are giving the skunk eye to Obama’s Dimocrats. Barack Obama is destroying the winning Hillary Clinton/FDR coalition:

“The number of seniors whom FDR converted to Democrats in the ’30s is shrinking fast.

A majority of seniors backed Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona over Obama in 2008. The seniors’ current tilt toward Republicans is being reinforced by Obama’s biggest accomplishment as president: the health care overhaul.

A George Washington University Battleground Poll this month found that only 36 percent of likely voters who were 65 and older approved of the health care legislation, which expands and mandates health insurance coverage. That was the lowest approval rating of any voter age group.

For November’s congressional elections, the poll found that seniors are far more inclined to vote for Republicans than for Democrats, by 48 percent to 33 percent.

“Other than enthusiasm of our base, it’s probably the biggest problem we face,” said Celinda Lake , the Democratic pollster partner of the bipartisan poll.”

Only now are B.O.T.s in the “creative class” slapped in the face with the Revelation of reality. The reality is that Barack Obama has chased away from the Democratic Party the very forces that constituted the Democratic Party. Now all that remains is a Hopium crazed circus that will go to a party but does not care to build one:

“Seniors are far more likely to vote in nonpresidential elections than young voters are. In the latest Gallup tracking poll, 41 percent of seniors were “very enthusiastic” about voting this year, nearly twice as high as registered voters younger than 30.

Consider two independent seniors who live in the retirement community of Sun City West, Ariz. :

Helen Burnside , 84, a retired nursing school dean, voted for Obama because “the country was going to hell in a handbasket” under Republicans.

She thought that a health care overhaul was needed but she fears that with the new law “the whole thing’s going to implode.” She’s disappointed in the Democrats’ failure to enact an immigration overhaul, and she thinks that the money Democrats have taken from Wall Street donors compromises them as much as it does Republicans.

“I generally vote,” Burnside said, but this year “I don’t know who our people are.

Faye Liebling , 78, voted for McCain in 2008 because she doubted that Obama could deliver on many promises. She hasn’t changed her mind.

“With this medical bill, where’s he going to get the money?” she said. “Who’s going to pay for it?” She didn’t like the bailouts for auto companies and banks, either. The bank bailouts began under former President George W. Bush but they continued under Obama.

“If I would vote Democrat, it’s like I am supporting him,” she said of Obama. “And I’ll be very honest, I don’t want to support him. I don’t agree with him on a lot of things.

Obama Dimocrats and the Dimocratic establishment did not listen to Hillary Clinton or to Hillary Clinton supporters. Obama Dimocrats and the Dimocratic establishment did not listen to the White Working Class but instead shouted “racists”, “bitter”, “clinging”. Obama Dimocrats and the Dimocratic Party did not listen to Seniors. Obama Dimocrats and the Dimocratic Party will not listen to the Tea Party Movement either.

In November however, at the voting booth, we will all be heard.


110 thoughts on “How To Destroy The Tea Party Movement

  1. My son, who is a socialist (and will thank you for noticing when you point it out), recently got a dose of cable news. He doesn’t own a tv so he had no idea how bad it all was. At the gym where he works out, they’ve installed televisions in front the ellipticals. They had CNN on during his work out the other day, and he was appalled. He said that everyone talking was obviously a north east liberal or a DC resident and they were extremely contemptuous of Scott Roeder and his supporters. He couldn’t figure out how talking about a group of people like that was productive. Not that he’s in Roeder’s camp in the least but that the condescension gums the threads of our national discourse up so badly.

    We’re a mess of a nation right now, that’s for sure.

  2. Oh, and the best way to kill a revolution is to sponsor it. I wonder if the tea party activists need some ads?

  3. Basement Angel, you are right. Advertisements kill revolutions too. We won’t be surprised the day we see Goldman Sachs sponsor a Tea Party event.

  4. And, it’s Kentucky Derby Day.

    “rose pink Cadillac, making bets on Kentucky Derby Day”

  5. “Barack Obama is destroying the winning Hillary Clinton/FDR coalition:”

    Admin, he has already destroyed it.

    I have been to a few Tea Parties in my area, while many are repubs, many are disgusted repubs now independents, and there are many dems, and even more independents, who tend to be socially centrist/maybe left of center (or really don’t care that much about social issues), and conservative on most other issues– fiscal, judicial, national security, etc.

    These people are conservatives, they may vary on social issues, but they are conservative when it comes to smaller govt, less intrusion in their lives, no more spending on shitty healthcare bills that help no one and hurt everyone (but the lobbyists).
    This is what the Tea Party is about.

    When I went to one event, there was a repub candidate who came to speak, but he didn’t id himself as a repub but as a conservative, and I for one would have voted for him. He was a small biz owner, wanted fairness, no bailouts, and enforcement of rules for a fair playing field for all.

    Then there was a dem(who claimed he was conservative) who also spoke with us, told us he was against the deathcare bill, but as he spoke, the audience soon figured out he was lying, and he was booed off the stage.

    Personally, I would rather have someone tell me the truth about what they think, if I disagree with them, then fine, at least I respect them for telling the truth.

    This whole Christ switch-a-roo is going to backfire hugely. He’s just another Benedict arnold, both sides loathe him, and they should! Same goes for Arlen Spector, at least Joe Sestack has been honest about where he stands, agree or disagree with him.

    People now know they have and are being played, and Obama was the biggest example of this.

    I recently got a call from a dem. candidate in my area, and I went to the event, I asked him are you for repealing the deathcare bill, I pointed out, this will hurt small biz, hurt middle class people, it will led to rationing, there is no way it won’t. And he said sure, see the thing is, no one in the audience believed him, its like they lie to our faces and then vote how botox woman and the fool in the WH tell them to. Who the hell will beleive them when their track record says soemthing else?

    This is why the Tea Party continues to grow, people want capitilism, they don’t corrupt capitilism, those who made bad bets, let them fail! People don’t want new regulations, hell just enforce the regulations that are already on the books, don’t add another layer of beaurocratic crap! People don’t want to be called a racist because they want rules enforced, like the ones in AZ!

    People are tired and sick of being lied to and they are now realising that DC is corrupt to the core! the American press is just an extension of the fool in the WH and is also corrupt to the core.

  6. Fabulous article, Admin! What a great way to start May.

    And yes, a hearty thank you to Sarah Palin. Finally, somebody has put these harassing BOTs in their place.

  7. An interesting ‘other side’ to the immigration debate.

    Published on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 by
    Immigration Flood Unleashed by NAFTA’s Disastrous Impact on Mexican Economy
    by Roger Bybee and Carolyn Winter

    The recent ferment on immigration policy has been so narrow that it has excluded the real issue: family-sustaining wages for workers both north and south of the border. The role of the North American Free Trade Agreement and misnamed ‘free trade’ has been scarcely mentioned in the increasingly bitter debate over the fate of America’s 11 to 12 million illegal aliens.

    NAFTA was sold to the American public as the magic formula that would improve the American economy at the same time it would raise up the impoverished Mexican economy. The time has come to look at the failures of this type of trade agreement before we engage in more and lower the economic prospects of all workers affected.

    While there has been some media coverage of NAFTA’s ruinous impact on US industrial communities, there has been even less media attention paid to its catastrophic effects in Mexico:

    * NAFTA, by permitting heavily-subsidized US corn and other agri-business products to compete with small Mexican farmers, has driven the Mexican farmer off the land due to low-priced imports of US corn and other agricultural products. Some 2 million Mexicans have been forced out of agriculture, and many of those that remain are living in desperate poverty. These people are among those that cross the border to feed their families. (Meanwhile, corn-based tortilla prices climbed by 50%. No wonder many so Mexican peasants have called NAFTA their ‘death warrant.’
    * NAFTA’s service-sector rules allowed big firms like Wal-Mart to enter the Mexican market and, selling low-priced goods made by ultra-cheap labor in China, to displace locally-based shoe, toy, and candy firms. An estimated 28,000 small and medium-sized Mexican businesses have been eliminated.
    * Wages along the Mexican border have actually been driven down by about 25% since NAFTA, reported a Carnegie Endowment study. An over-supply of workers, combined with the crushing of union organizing drives as government policy, has resulted in sweatshop pay running sweatshops along the border where wages typically run 60 cents to $1 an hour.

    So rather than improving living standards, Mexican wages have actually fallen since NAFTA. The initial growth in the number of jobs has leveled off, with China’s even more repressive labor system luring US firms to locate there instead.

    But Mexicans must still contend with the results of the American-owned ‘maquiladora’ sweatshops: subsistence-level wages, pollution, congestion, horrible living conditions (cardboard shacks and open sewers), and a lack of resources (for streetlights and police) to deal with a wave of violence against vulnerable young women working in the factories. The survival (or less) level wages coupled with harsh working conditions have not been the great answer to Mexican poverty, while they have temporarily been the answer to Corporate America’s demand for low wages.

    With US firms unwilling to pay even minimal taxes, NAFTA has hardly produced the promised uplift in the lives of Mexicans. Ciudad Juarez Mayor Gustavo Elizondo, whose city is crammed with US-owned low-wage plants, expressed it plainly: “We have no way to provide water, sewage, and sanitation workers. Every year, we get poorer and poorer even though we create more and more wealth.”

    Falling industrial wages, peasants forced off the land, small businesses liquidated, growing poverty: these are direct consequences of NAFTA. This harsh suffering explains why so many desperate Mexicans — lured to the border area in the false hope that they could find dignity in the US-owned maquiladoras — are willing to risk their lives to cross the border to provide for their families. There were 2.5 million Mexican illegals in 1995; 8 million have crossed the border since then. In 2005, some 400 desperate Mexicans died trying to enter the US.

    NAFTA failed to curb illegal immigration precisely because it was never designed as a genuine development program crafted to promote rising living standards, health care, environmental cleanup, and worker rights in Mexico. The wholesale surge of Mexicans across the border dramatically illustrates that NAFTA was no attempt at a broad uplift of living conditions and democracy in Mexico, but a formula for government-sanctioned corporate plunder benefiting elites on both sides of the border.

    NAFTA essentially annexed Mexico as a low-wage industrial suburb of the US and opened Mexican markets to heavily-subsidized US agribusiness products, blowing away local producers. Capital could flow freely across the border to low-wage factories and Wal-mart-type retailers, but the same standard of free access would be denied to Mexican workers.

    Meanwhile, with the planned Central American Free Trade Agreement with five Central American nations coming up, we can anticipate even greater pressure on our borders as agricultural workers are pushed off the land without positive, alternative employment opportunities. People from Guatemala and Honduras will soon learn that they can’t compete for industrial jobs with the most oppressed people in say, China, by agreeing to lowering their wages even more. Further, impoverished Central American countries don’t have the resources to deal with the pollution and crime that results from moving people from rural areas to the city, often without their families.

    Thus far, we have been presented with a narrow range of options to cope with the tide of illegal immigrants living fearfully in the shadows of American life. Should they simply be walled off and criminalized, as Sensenbrenner and House Republicans suggest? The Sensenbrenner option seeks to exploit the sentiment that illegal immigrants entering the US — rather than US corporations exiting the US for Mexico and China — are the primary cause of falling wages for most Americans.

    The Bush version is only slightly different, envisioning the “illegal immigrants” as part of a vast disposable pool of cheap labor with no meaningful rights on the job or even the right to vote, to be returned to Mexico upon the whim of their employers.

    Yet there is another well-known path of economic and social integration that has been ignored in the debates over immigration in the US: the one followed by the European Union and their “social charter” calling for decent wages, health care, and extensive retraining in all nations. Before then-impoverished nations like Spain, Greece and Portugal were admitted, they received massive EU investments in roads, health care, clean water, and education. The implementation of democracy, including worker rights, was an equally vital pre-condition for entry into the EU.

    The underlying concept: the entire reason for trade is to provide improved lives across borders, not to exploit the cheapest labor and weakest environmental rules. We need to question the widely-held assumption that what benefits American corporations benefits Mexican workers and American workers. An authentic plan for growth and development isn’t about further enriching Wall Street, major corporations, and a handful of Mexican billionaires; it is about the creation of family-supporting jobs. It is also about a healthy environment, healthy workers, good education, and ordinary people being able to achieve their dreams.

    The massive tide of illegal immigration from Mexico is merely one symptom of an economic arrangement where human needs — not maximum profits– are not the ultimate goal but a subject of neglect. Neither a massive, shameful barrier at the border nor a disposable guest-worker program will address the problems ignited by NAFTA.

    Programs providing stable, decent employment, modern transportation, clean water, and environmental cleanup are needed to take the place of the immense NAFTA failure and allow Mexicans to live decent, hopeful lives in their native land. But such an effort is imaginable only if the aim is truly mutual uplift for all citizens in both nations, instead of the NAFTA-fueled race to the bottom.

    Roger Bybee and Carolyn Winter are Milwaukee-based writers and activists. They can be reached at

  8. From Reason, on Naomi Klein’s introduction to the new edition of No Logo:

    In the new introduction to No Logo, Klein denounces Obama as little more than a neocon who has wrapped himself in the branding of truly transformative political movements. Shamelessly helping itself to the iconography of Che Guevara, the rhetorical cadences of Martin Luther King, and the “Yes We Can” slogan of Latin American migrant workers, the Obama brand is just as hollow and inauthentic, as far as Klein is concerned, as the corporate brands she X-rayed a decade before. Whenever possible, she alleges, Obama “favors the grand symbolic gesture over deep structural change.” He was happy to play the role of the “anti-war, anti–Wall Street party crasher” when running for the Democratic nomination, but promptly cut bipartisan deals “with crazed Republicans once in the White House.”

    You can see where Klein is going with this. In No Logo, she argued that it is simply not enough for anti-brand activists to persuade Nike to improve its production methods or for McDonald’s to fix its environmental problems. Similarly, today it is not good enough for the most liberal president in ages to settle for half a loaf when the alternative is going hungry. In both cases, she argues, a profoundly corrupt system is left intact. Any suggestion that things might have changed, if marginally, for the better is dismissed as just more marketing spin.

    Still, Klein claims to spy an ironic sort of hope in Obama’s victory. Just as the success of socially conscious branding is a sign that there is a longing out there for equality, diversity, and public space, she writes, the well of hope and expectation that Obama was able to plumb is decisive proof that there is still a tremendous appetite for social justice. That he has failed to deliver is almost beside the point: The market research is done, and all that is left is for genuine transformative social movements to exploit the niche.

  9. Thanks for that article from Klein, basement angel. IIRC, she was also a BOT at one point (it was the Klein trifecta, Joe, Ezra, and Naomi), so it is good to see her waking up also.

  10. Basement Angel, ditto what Fifth Dimension wrote. We wrote long ago, repeatedly, that Obama was defacing the well deserved Martin Luther King history. Good to see Klein understanding our point.

    What Obama and Favreau did was “sample” iconic imagery and speeches but they never understood a word that the TelePrompTer scrolled. That so many African-Americans allowed themselves to be “played” was a particularly unkind cut. That John Lewis, the great “chicken preacher” allowed himself to be bullied into dropping support for Hillary was also very dispiriting.

    It’s like a song that you love and value when you first hear it as part of a TV/radio commercial hawking hamburgers. The song you loved is treated so shabbily you hate the product even more.

  11. Another brilliant post admin. You have seized on the critical difference between the Dimocratic Strategy and the Republican one. The Dimocratic strategy relies on Alinsky methods to suppress an authentic grass roots movement which is fundamentally opposed to their messiah and their message. That dynamic alone is powerful enough to drive them into the opposing camp. But the Republicans have opened every door they can to them, while hiding the true nature of their own agenda. Thesis-Obama. Anti-thesis-Republicans. Synthesis-Hillary Clinton who is the last descendant of the Roosevelt tradition. Someone who will represent the American People, as opposed to the big business interests, much as he did under rather similar circumstances over 80 years ago. The open question is whether it will happen, because if it does not then we are headed for a depression. Pay no heed to the business cycle. That can be manipulated. What cannot be manipulated is business fundamentals. What is happening today in Greece, and is spreading to Spain will eventually engulf the Atlantic economic system and will over time spread to the Pacific economic system as well. What we are seeing today is the economic equivalent which began as Bismark predicted with some damned thing in the Balkans and ended with the devastation of Europe. Here the collapse is of a monetary system which is utterly detached from the physical economy and the nation state.

  12. As I recall, John Lewis was getting death threats from Obama supporters. It was a crazy time.

    What I saw is that the normal flood control channels didn’t work when the flood was coming from the left and not the right. All sorts of people who are fearless in standing up to the right were clueless when they had to stand up to Meteor Blades, instead. People really got their identity locked up in Obama. Just like the people over at Free Republic who regard hating clinton as a sign of moral superiority – same thing.

  13. Kay, that is exactly right and I have made mention of it before. Much of this migration to the north is driven by the devastation of the economy in the south by globalist policies. It is a tragedy writ large. The Mexican actor Edward Alomos has made this point as well rather eloquently. But it goes beyond NAFTA and extends to the entire world trading system based on monetarism, and open boarders for goods and labor which the globalists have been trying to construct since the fall of the Berlin Wall. It hearkens back to that famous quote by Professor Fukayama that history has ended and the future belongs to markets. Today, little statues of The Virgin of Guadalupe the patron saint of Mexico on any street corner just as you always could. But today the label on the bottom says: made in China.

  14. Barack Obama is destroying the winning Hillary Clinton/FDR coalition:”

    Admin, he has already destroyed it.
    Go back in history as far as you like, and what you will find is a peasant class who is tied to the physical economy in prior times the land, and a merchant class which is tied to international trade and is exploitive of the peasant class. Today, the same principle is in evidence. The peasant class, the yoman class, the working class, the middle class call it what you will, is fundamentally conservative which is to say center right. Whereas the upper class, the bankers, the globalists and the government bureaucrats which did in the spanish empire are devotees of constant change, which benefits them and them alone. And because the elite class is always smaller it must rely on coersion and propaganda to manipulate the masses and when that does not work they turn to suppression and authoritarianism. That is the end game of Obama’s mantra of change. And half the country is clueless, credulous and scared of the wrong things. The seeds of revolution can be found in this kind of situation as the true motives of the elites can no longer be hidden from public view. The revolution can proceed along many different lines, but the alienation we see today coupled with negative business fundamentals are most likely the precursor.

  15. Wbboei,

    The working class is not center right. Overall, they are center left. C’mon – let’s stop with the Limbaugh-esque propoganda.

  16. In times past, when I was working with a cattle coalition, more than one experienced cattleman told me that if you wander through a cattle barn the night before the animals are taken in for slaughter there is a distinct uneasiness in the air, the cattle are restless, because the cattle seem to realize in an intuitive sort of way, that bad times are coming. That is the sense we see today from many people about the future and it is magnified ten fold by the machinations of Obama. Only the young can seem to ignore this reality and carry on as if Obama is the solution, when he is really the problem.

  17. basement angel said:
    The working class is not center right. Overall, they are center left.


    This may be more a question of the definition of ‘center left’ and ‘center right.’

    What policies do those people actually support? (And which people are labeled ‘working class’?)

  18. The working class is not center right. Overall, they are center left. C’mon
    I know you do not want to believe it because it does not coincide with your ideology. But in an empirical sense it is quite true, and it has been commented on by many people in times past. Human nature is adverse to change. Human nature prefers th tangible over the intangible. Human nature believes in patriotism, family and religion. That is conservative. It may not be republican but it is definitely conservative. When the system is not working for them conservative people may adopt extreme positions to protect their interests, but fundamentally they remain conservative and not necessarily republican.

  19. Basement angel: it may surprise you to know that some of the most conservative people I have ever met were rural democrats, and trade union members. It is the intellectual class and the elites who are forever wanting to change the system. As long as the system works for them, working people are happy. I will have to pick this up with you later if you care to respond. I have got a meeting to go to.

  20. Human nature believes in patriotism, family and religion. That is conservative.

    Actually I stonily disagree with this, first that liberals do not follow ‘human nature’………

    Second, liberals also have feelings of patriotism towards their country, just as strong family beliefs and some are religious and others………not so much.

    Conservatives don’t have the lead on any of these issues.

  21. Somewhere I read that the republicans are cannabalizing their centrists…that I do believe becauseglenn beck has suddenly started preaching on his show…They are desparately trying to wake up the moral majority again…

  22. “Act like a doormat, be treated like a doormat.”

    Exactly. And they are the only ones.

  23. Basement Angel–one more thought on the subject before I head out the door. Think of this in terms of the union model. Would you agree that union workers qualify as members of the working class? I think that is axiomatic. Now assume that the bargaining relationship has matured to the point that management accepts the union the representative of its employees as a matter of business practice, and the union accepts the fact that the employer has the right to manage the business subject to the limitations set forth in labor law and the collective bargaining agreement. At that point the status quo is established. More often than not, management is the one who demands that the status quo be changed to conform to the changing realities of the marketplace and the union is the one insisting that the status quo not change in a way that would adversely affect their interests, even though there are solid business reasons to do so. That is another sense in which they are conservative. If they are pressed they may adopt extreme measures such as strikes, slowdowns or the inside game. But the goal is to conserve what they have. I am not suggesting they wear Jerry Falwell buttons. What I am saying is they are resistant to change.

  24. Here it is….Global governance…its coming!

    The President of the European Central Bank, Jean-Claude Trichet, told Forbes that global governance is extremely necessary if we want to prevent another financial crisis. In his prepared printed and spoken remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations, Trichet emphasized that politicians, economists, and financiers must work across the Atlantic and collaborate on methods to create an international set of standards. It is his belief that through global governance, the resiliency of the global financial system can be assured, noting that ultimately it was governments’ use of taxpayer’s money, equivalent to around 25% of GDP on both sides of the Atlantic, that prevented another catastrophic great depression from occurring. With the backdrop of a U.S. financial regulation bill being stuck in the Senate, he argued three main points in support of creating internationally agreed rules.

    1) First, the principle of subsidiary is essential. No rule should be imposed at a global level or supranational level that cannot be more or equally effectively set at the national or local level.

    Video: ECB President On Global Governance

    2) Second, it’s not easy to create a complex set of rules in a complicated and often obscure field like finance, but that it is absolutely critical if we want to create stable financial markets.

    3) Finally, global rules can be limiting from country-to-country, but that it is imperative now more than ever, because financial innovation has spiraled out of control in a negative way.

    Additionally, he stressed that the financial emergencies created by investment banks and governments creates some contradictory issues.

    “On the one hand it has unleashed a tendency to reengage in financial nationalism if not mercantilism; on the other hand it had contributed to the recognition that a very high degree of interdependencies between economies called for a much higher level of cooperation.”

    In the end, Trichet believes it’s the financial sector’s responsibility to respond to economic challenges.

    “While financial liberalization, deregulation, and innovation all have the potential to make our economies more productive and more resilient, the financial sector must not forget that its purpose is to serve the real economy, not the other way around.”

  25. Thesis – Antithesis – Synthesis: I love it when you get Hegelian, wbboei.

    And yes, while Naomi Klein may be finally realizing that Obama is nothing more than a poor simulacra of the Historical Greats, I remember well that Admin was the first to point out this pathetic, hodgepodge (one day he’s MLK!! one day he’s JFK!!) self aggrandizing on Obama’s part to people much better than him.

    Anybody can copy anyone’s words, heck Obama stole most of Hillary’s ideas (or at least tried to mimic them during the primaries, what he’s done while ‘governing’ is a whole other story)…but words, as people are starting to realize, are not enough. Our beloved heroes were not just inspiring through their words, they were inspiring through their actions as well, and that is where Obama falls painfully short. Just my two cents.

    On another note, I was looking more into the David Kernell (the Sarah Palin hacker) story. Looks like there was also an obstruction of justice charge. Kernell it seems, once he realized what he had done, tried to erase data from his computer. When I read this, I couldn’t help but think of the Obama “Hope” poster plagiarist Shepherd Fairey….who also tried to destroy evidence and create false documents to cover up the real source of the poster (the AP’s photo).

    Obama supporters. Birds of a feather… 🙂

  26. Actually I stonily disagree with this, first that liberals do not follow ‘human nature’…
    Perhaps I was not clear. The political distinction I see is between the hard left and the center. The economic distinction was between the working people and elites. If those are the parameters then many people who are liberal are conservative. It sounds like sophistry when I say it that way, but that is why I did not use the word liberal. I consider myself to be a liberal but I want to conserve the traditions of this country, the nation state and the constitution. I believe in a more equitable distribution of the wealth, safety nets and making our country a viable economic power. The hard left would say I am a conservative, and compared to them I am. My values are very close to those of Joe Sestak who was a strong Hillary supporter. They were close to Jim Webb before he caved in on health care. Are they liberals in your opinion?

  27. Thesis – Antithesis – Synthesis: I love it when you get Hegelian, wbboei.
    It helps remind me that there is a life of some sort after Obama, and that he is not the end game, or as Fukyama would say the end of history.

  28. Are they liberals in your opinion?

    I don’t know enough of those people to answer that question with confidence. I do believe that Hillary Clinton is a centralist liberal and many Dems, even in the congress are liberals. I think of the hard left as ‘progressives’, those that follow the more socialistic model. I don’t think we would even have to defend our values if the Fraud hadn’t pitted Democrats against each other and torn our party to shreds with corruption.
    Maybe the centralists are weak, or maybe they are feeling like a third party right now like the Tea Party people…but their numbers are going with many PUMAs in the same boat right now.

  29. wbboei
    May 1st, 2010 at 4:19 pm

    It helps remind me that there is a life of some sort after Obama, and that he is not the end game, or as Fukyama would say the end of history.


    Well said, wbboei. I enjoyed your comment. It also reminds me that with Obama on one side, and the Republicans on the other…..the best answer to both their nonsense is still…Hillary.

  30. ack, too many typos, too little time.

    but their numbers are growing with many PUMAs in the same boat right now

  31. That’s the way to destroy the Tea Party Movement. Listen to them. Treat them with respect. Seek to understand. That advice is valid, not because we are bleeding heart liberals, but because “they” are voters. And Gordon Brown (it wasn’t Mexican immigrants that prompted the debate on immigration in Britain) in Britain now understands that calling voters bigots because they ask questions is a very stupid thing to do if you want to build a political party.
    So there they are on the beaches of Dunkirk, with German Stukas strafing their lines, the German artillary pounding their troops, their back to the sea and the corporal turns to the sergeant major and says sarge do you think of our strategy now? The problem is there are no ships in the English channel to rescue these clowns. They have lost the trust of the American People and any overtures they make now will invite suspicion and will lead to further retaliation. Makes you wonder whether Janet Neopolitiano had a hand in this strategy since she has a habit of showing up whenever there is a disaster.

  32. The False God has spoken. Let him burn in…

    President warns Israel over peace talks deadlock

    May 2, 2010

    US PRESIDENT Barack Obama has warned Israel that he will pave the way for an independent Palestinian state if the peace process is still deadlocked in September.

    Mr Obama is proposing that, unless there is a breakthrough, the international community take over the Middle East peace process, Israeli officials have said.

    Mr Obama has formulated a secret plan with European allies to convene an international peace conference by the end of the year, Israel’s Ha’aretz newspaper reports.

    The move would fulfil one of Israel’s deepest fears by effectively stripping it of its power to dictate the course of the talks.

    The conference would attempt to end decades of Israeli-Palestinian conflict by pressing both sides to accept compromises on issues ranging from the future of Palestinian refugees to the status of Jerusalem. Mr Obama is also eager to gain international recognition for the creation of a Palestinian state.

    Officials in the office of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu expressed dismay at reports that Mr Obama was planning a takeover of negotiations by imposing his own peace deal on the two sides and said such a step would undermine indirect talks brokered by the US, to start this week.

    Mr Obama’s efforts to broker a peace deal have faltered badly. Trust between the two sides has all but evaporated in a row over Mr Netanyahu’s settlement policy in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

  33. basementangel @3:32, I think that many americans are center left. However, if you do not allow them that position, and give them only a choice between moving further right or moving further left, they will choose right, every time.

    In my experience, most working class are indeed fairly centrist, and view the far right with some suspicion. But they view the far left with absolute loathing and fear. Every single time the Left has tried to forcefully yank the American public further left than they want to go, the response has always been a reflexive move further to the right. It seems paradoxical, but this is what I have seen in my lifetime.

    This is why the left’s theories about “Overton windows” do not hold true in practice. Or rather, it holds true for the Right , but completely backfires for the Left.

  34. “US PRESIDENT Barack Obama has warned Israel that he will pave the way for an independent Palestinian state if the peace process is still deadlocked in September.

    Mr Obama is proposing that, unless there is a breakthrough, the international community take over the Middle East peace process, Israeli officials have said.”

    Can someone please tell the Community-Organizer-in-Chief that no one gives a crap about what he says. They know he is a moron, a weak one at that. Bibi will fight for and defend every inch of Israel before he submits to that fool in the WH.

    Seriously, he is now becoming such a f***ing joke. Hate to curse, but the man is a buffon. He really is!!!

    Hillary better leave this mess after November.

  35. basement angel
    May 1st, 2010 at 2:25 pm

    From Reason, on Naomi Klein’s introduction to the new edition of No Logo:

    In the new introduction to No Logo, Klein denounces Obama as little more than a neocon who has wrapped himself in the branding of truly transformative political movements. Shamelessly helping itself to the iconography of Che Guevara, the rhetorical cadences of Martin Luther King, and the “Yes We Can” slogan of Latin American migrant workers, the Obama brand is just as hollow and inauthentic


    Excellent. And someone caught on to that back in 2008, and wrote a great post called “The Vampire” at Taylor Marsh. Later that writer was at Bitterpoliticz, but I can’t remember his name.

  36. tim:

    And they thought Bush was a hubris-riddled nation-builder? Who the fuck does Obama think he is? “If you don’t do what we want, we will make you.” Funny, he never tried that tack with Iran and its nukes.

    I hope Bibi tells him to go hump a camel. And I agree, Hillary needs to get OUT of that administration. She’s getting fleas from lying down with those dogs, and at some point she will not be able to shake them off.

  37. My take, most people are centerist socially and maybe slightly left of center socially, however they are right of center, conservative when it comes to fiscal, judicial and national security issues. And these are all relative depending on what a person’s center is.

    Obama is a radical far lefty. Hillary was more moderate, she was socially more left of center, but conservative when it came to national security issues. Sarah is right of center on social issues as well as national security issues, but she can attract former lifelong ex-dems like me, reagan dems, b/c she doesn’t seem to want to govern her social views on me, and I agree with her on fiscal and national security and judicial issues.

    Which is why Hillary was able to attract so many repubs, and Sarah can attract many dems/independents. And after what I saw done to Hillary in 2008, I no longer trust a word of what the media says about electability, and from the ratings I am seeing of the remaining MSM, neither does an increasing number of americans.

  38. Wbboeie,

    It’s the working class that supports programs like Social Security, Medicare and student loan programs – all three socialist inventions and all three, programs that make people’s live better in substantial and verifiable ways,

    You say some stuff that I agree with but you condescend at the drop of a hat (and you aren’t smart enough to be condescending to anyone) and you use highly diluted and inexact language to express yourself. When you combine that with your tendency to quote people like Limbaugh and Morris, it makes it really hard to take you seriously. I think you’re incredibly dishonest person who is almost completely full of shit. And I hate the way you try and control the conversation here.

    This nation consistently supports policies that are center left. We don’t always see that in the voting booth because it’s also easy to motivate against policies that actually make people’s lives work. Campaigning against “welfare mothers” is easy. Bigots, like Obama, are good at stirring up an emotional vote.

  39. and you aren’t smart enough to be condescending to anyone
    thank you basement angel. Coming from you I will take that as a compliment. And I know you do not give out compliments lightly.

  40. Isn’t it amazing how downright stupid the dnc is to be promoting this if you do not agree with Obama you must be a racist routine. As stand up comedy it is maybe okay in small doses, but it is utterly detached from reality if the goal is to win elections where the people it target unjustly represent the majority of the electorate. The one thing it does do is polarize the country at a time when we need to unite. And it is one more example of why you cannot govern through the endless campaign. This political death wish by Van Hollen and the DNC is also a business death wish for big media who marches to the same drum.

  41. This nation consistently supports policies that are center left. We don’t always see that in the voting booth because it’s also easy to motivate against policies that actually make people’s lives work. Campaigning against “welfare mothers” is easy. Bigots, like Obama, are good at stirring up an emotional vote.
    like no new taxes?

  42. JanH, Thanks for posting that article…its really quiet scary…it seems Obama is going to make the peace his way…hmmm, hmmm!

    I think by the end of this year we will all know Obama’s true plan for everyone…he has one..that is for sure!

  43. When you combine that with your tendency to quote people like Limbaugh and Morris, it makes it really hard to take you seriously. I think you’re incredibly dishonest person who is almost completely full of shit. And I hate the way you try and control the conversation here.
    Basement Angel you must learn to separate the messenger from the message. If Morris says something which is accurate, is it dishonest to quote him because of who he is? Or does it add something to the analysis? An ideologue refuses to accept anything the opposition says. A pragmatists recognizes that neither party tells the truth all of the time, and the other party may have something valid to listen to. I do not recall ever quoting Rush on this blog, but I will remember to do so the next time he says something that makes sense, because that is really the bottom line. And if the common goal we want is to get Hillary in the White House, then we need a gotterdamerung in 2010, and for that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. I will accept the possibility that I am full of shit as you say, it you will accept the counterveiling possibility that you yourself may be looking at things the wrong way. That will prove to me that you are not an ideologue.

  44. My take, most people are centerist socially and maybe slightly left of center socially, however they are right of center, conservative when it comes to fiscal, judicial and national security issues. And these are all relative depending on what a person’s center is.
    Yes. You said it better than I did. And I think that is more true than say forty years ago.

    But it is that center right conservatism in the population at large as you describe it which makes it infinitely more difficult for elite political and business interests to enact changes and reshape society to their own ends. Therefore, they are likely to resort to draconian measures. That is the key to understanding both Bush and Obama.

  45. And I hate the way you try and control the conversation here.
    Basement angel, if you think I am doing that then I apologize. However, the beauty of this site from the beginning has been that we react to both Admin’s genius and current events. My goal in bringing stuff is to support the ongoing narrative and the truth is where you find it. At the same time, I try to share experiences and what I have leaned from them. When you told me how hard you worked for Hillary, how your camera got stolen I could empathaize. And I felt a sense of kinship because when I canvassed in places like Pennslyvania I saw how working people were losing out under Bush. I supported Hillary because she had solutions to the societal problems you are legitimately concerned about. Under Obama those problems have been exacerbated. But I think it is critical to get beyond labels and talk about what is really happening.

  46. wbboei
    May 1st, 2010 at 6:29 pm

    Yes. JFK would not be a democrat today in the far left version that exists now. He was a pretty conservative democrat, he would be absolutely stunned at the radicalism, the apologizing for America that is now in the fool in the WH’s version of the democrat party.

  47. And yes, I meant to say “democrat party” in that instance. After what I saw on May 31th 2008, when 4 delegates, which represented thousands of votes, were taken from one candidate who earned them and given to another who did not earn them, there is nothing democratic about a political party that does that. They are not the “democratic party” after May 31th, 2008 in my book.

  48. wbboei, I do agree with you that labels mean nothing anymore, I look at the principles and policies, call them whatever, but that is what I look at now. Labels make it easier to tear people apart, but explain what a person stands for, what principles they espouse, then it doesn’t matter what label is given.

  49. wbboei,

    You are a treasured and respected writer here at 44.

    I have never read comments written by you which are rude, nnasty and just plain uncalled for.

    Kudos to you for rising above it.

    Basement Angel, it is you who is being condescending by writing such ugly, insulting, opinionated and bot-like comments.

    Just becasue another poster doesn’t agree with you is no reason to lash out at them, unless. of course, you are “guzzling the hopium.”

  50. If Hillary does not distance herself from this latest assault on Israel….i.e..the peace process….I will take my Hillary 2012 bumber sticker off. Ther e are many who feel as I do. Hillary will very soon have to take a stand and many will not forgive her actions or trust her if she is on board with this.

    I have been a huge Hillary supporter and defender. But I do not follow blindly.

  51. I agree, Carol. I understand that this is Obama’s policy, not hers. And that she would have done things far, far differently if she were in charge. But at what point is she going to say, “Enough.”?

    She is fast approaching the point where she faces the same sort of choices that Colin Powell did. Powell began by trying to be the “voice of reason” in the Bush administration, and that is why he stayed. But in the end he did not have any effect on them. On the contrary, they compromised him by degrees, until he did something awful that if you had asked him in the beginning, he’d have sworn he’d never do.

    At some point, going along because you think you can “do more good from the inside” becomes a dicey and murky path. I do not know if Hillary is at that point with the Israel and Iran debacles, but I’ll bet it keeps her up nights.

  52. “Hillary will very soon have to take a stand and many will not forgive her actions or trust her if she is on board with this.”

    Carol, I agree with you, I have defended Hillary, but if she does not take a stand against the fool’s anti-Israel policy, I will no longer defend her or forgive her for standing by. To me, this is that Colin Powell moment when he went to the UN with his vials, then 3 years later whine that he was unconfortable doing so. Well, then Mr.Powell, where the hell was your spine to stand up??

    Hillary is soon going to be at that point, if she does not stand with Israel and stand against that fool’s assisine policies, I will not support or defend her, like you I do not follow blindly either, as I suspect most PUMAs don’t.

  53. sorry to keep posting about this, but it just seems like the walls are closing in on Israel.

    Israel will top agenda at United Nations nuclear non-proliferation conference

    By Yossi Melman

    Just as Iran enters a decisive phase in its progress toward achieving the ability to build a nuclear weapon, a bizarre reversal has put Israel’s nuclear program at the top of the agenda as the United Nations begins a review of its global non-proliferation regime in New York tomorrow.

    The Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which takes place every five years, gathers representatives from 190 countries. Only signatories to the treaty – which was drafted in 1968, came into force in 1970 and extended in 1995 – are entitled to attend. As a result, Israel – along with Pakistan, India and North Korea – is forbidden from taking part.

    While Israel, through its diplomatic mission at the UN and its Atomic Energy Commission(IAEC), will no doubt keep a close eye on proceedings, there remains a fear that Egypt, along with partners in the Arab League and from across the Muslim world, will hijack the conference, turning it into a month-long exercise in Israel-bashing.

    Three main issues dominate the agenda: disposing of existing nuclear weapons, as demanded by paragraph four of the treaty; stopping the spread of atomic weapons, components and technology for building them; and the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.

    This year the parties to the treaty will meet in an atmosphere of high tension – between the majority bloc of states, known as the Non-Aligned Movement, and a small group of countries who between them have a near-monopoly on nuclear arms and technology. Put simply, this is the same old tension between rich countries and poor ones, between the developed West and the developing East.

    The West, led by the United States, hopes to rein in proliferation by stiffening the IAEA’s powers of inspection. In this, they have in mind a dangerous precedent set by Iraq, Syria and Libya – all signatories to the NPT, yet all of whom operated clandestine nuclear programs under the noses of international inspectors. The West also has in mind North Korea, whose accession to the treaty did little to prevent the country carrying out two nuclear weapons tests and successfully producing a bomb. Western nations also fear Iran, which has repeatedly mocked, defied and ignored both the UN Security Council and the IAEA and is working systematically toward the point at which – if it chooses – it will be able to build a nuclear weapon.

    To prevent this, Western states are pushing to make the IAEA’s powers more binding by enforcing an “additional protocol” to the international treaty, allowing unscheduled and more intrusive inspections. They also want to toughen the terms under which a country could pull out of the NPT, to prevent a “break-out” scenario in which Iran suddenly unveils a nuclear capability, just as North Korea did eight years ago.

    Israel might well be happy with this sort of agenda, which closely echoes its own position. But this year, Israel is not in luck: Egypt, as leader of the Non-Aligned bloc, is working to make its neighbor hostage to the global non-proliferation regime. The Egyptians plan to use this month’s conference to call on Israel to sign the NPT, open its reactor at Dimona to international inspectors and join regional talks to declare the Middle East a “nuclear-free zone” – talks that would also involve Iran. Cairo has signaled that if its demands are rejected, it may carry its 118 non-aligned allies to obstruct the West’s proposed reforms of the NPT.

    Israel, for its part, has been left wondering why the conference has decided to pick on its own particular stance on the NPT, when India and Pakistan are in much the same position. Israel says it has no problem with the idea of a “nuclear-free” Middle East, provided the declaration comes as part of a wider package of peace deals and security agreements to rid the region of weapons of mass destruction in all forms, including chemical and biological agents and the missiles that would deliver them.

  54. basement angel
    May 1st, 2010 at 5:11 pm
    Wbb’s analysis is considered here to be exceptional. I take a personal affront reading your opinionated and rude comments re wbb. If anyone here is full of themselves, it is you, and you sir/her, are no angel!

  55. confloyd
    May 1st, 2010 at 6:03 pm
    Thanks to obama’s hatred and mishandling of the middle east issue from day one, there will be a lot of blood shed before this is over.

  56. gonzotx
    May 1st, 2010 at 9:36 pm
    basement angel
    May 1st, 2010 at 5:11 pm
    I agree wholeheartedly with gonzotx.
    If we are into insults, let me say – basement angel is more of a basement than an angel.

    I come to this blog to read wbbboi and another person. Wbb enlightens and this other person inspires.

    Who but Wbb can quote – in blogs, or in MSM, or anywhere in academia – Alexander Pope and Eric Hoffer without missing a beat?
    His analyses are incisive, lawyer-like, and a pleasure to read with all his side stories. He enlightens.

    And the person that inspires me on this blog is ABM90. I love him because his agenda is mine – pure and simple, Hillary and nothing but Hillary.

  57. It is so heartbreaking to see the descension on this blog rear its ugly head again. Here we are again fighting amongst ourselves (hillary’s most loyal supporters)! Do we really want to play in the hands of Obama and his supporters??? We all agree its Hillary or nothing!!
    Why are we fighting about center left or center right…center is center on the carpenter’s level and it has outside margins, but its all center.
    I enjoy both Wbboei’s comments as well as Basement Angels’s. I find it totallly disgusting that people are again picking sides, how Jr. High are we anyway?

  58. Jan H, I think I posted an article that said he was actually going to take over and make it two states without permission from Israel…OMG! This is the worst thing that could happen…all bets are off if he does this…I don’t think Israel will stand by and let this happen.

    Now Iran being on the front lines of Women’s issues…I bet that is annoying Hillary to the bone??

  59. probably the most boring and unfunny WH Correspondent’s dinner I have ever seen…

    Obama bombed…his delivery was terrible and his ‘jokes’ worse…even Jay Leno was flat…what a build up to anti climatic performances…the audience response was very muted…even when the c-span camera panned to big O supporters…all they could seem to muster was a forced and unsure grin…at the very least O needs Wanda Sykes…

    tomorrow the media will probably try to sell us on how funny O was…that will be the real joke…

    …nothing like when Bill had even his opponents laughing out loud at his stand ups at the same dinner…

  60. William was the writer of the Vampire article found on the bitterpoliticz blog. He doesn’t seem to visit or contribute to her website anymore.

  61. confloyd
    May 1st, 2010 at 11:27 pm

    Gee, can’t we all get along and be friends? Sorry confloyd, angle deserves a comeuppance. He/she/it is always rude and condescending. I think there is jealousy in them there hills!

  62. President Barack Obama on Friday rejected calls from environmentalists to cancel plans for new offshore drilling, but he promised future efforts would contain safeguards to prevent a repeat of the rig accident that left 11 workers presumed dead and thousands of gallons of oil leaking into Gulf of Mexico.

  63. GonzoTx, I dunno but we Hillary supporters need to stick together…I believe she is going to make her break soon and will run. I think everyone is just nervous about all that is going on in the world…I know I am…gee if they dismantel social security I will be up shit creek without a paddle, luckily my children will help me but they don’t have that much money because its costs so much to live now…I am prepared to live by candlelight…but don’t take away my running water…LOL!

    I love the folks on this blog and of coarse this blog as admin has always allowed for free thought and expression…no one should be ostrasized for their opinion…sorry can’t spell anymore..LOL!! What about that Colt McCoy…you never answered fellow TEXAN???

  64. Shadowfax,
    The boy Potus always closes the door after the horses are out!!

    BTW, I love that name, how’d you come up with that??

  65. 6:30 PM a car in Times Square was noticed to be smoking…a man ran away from it and the police found wires, propane, gasoline…possibly a terrorist car bomb.
    Fox is waiting for a news conference now.
    FBI, Homeland Security are on it.

  66. Confloyd
    BTW, I love that name, how’d you come up with that??
    It’s from Tolkien’s, Lord of the Rings.

  67. wbboei, it is not you who is trying to control the conversation here. It’s actually basement angel who is attempting to do so, but mostly failing. It’s not that everything she writes is wrong either. It’s the way that she attempts to control the other bloggers with her Bushesque “you’re either with me or against me” attitude. Personally, I like your well informed posts, wwboei. Part of the reason is because I believe that I am much closer to your political views. As for basement angel, I don’t know how many more ways one can say socialism isn’t all bad, and Obama is a
    corporatist. Although I believe you to be wrong about socialism, Obama being tied to corporate America is not a false idea. I hope you continue posting here, but it would be nice if you check the attitude beforehand.

  68. Obama has a nefarious plan to transform our nation from a democratic nation in which the American People are the boss(as Harry Truman once put it) and the power of government is limited, into an authoritarian system where federal judges make the ultimate decisions, supplant domestic law with foreign law and disenfranchise the American People. This is being done Czars like Cass Sunstein who is a major advocate of the concept of a “living constitution”. It is being done quietly and in the shadows so it is scarcely noticed, and least of all by big media. Justice Markman of the Supreme Court of Michigan and former United States attorney spoke to this very issue at Hillsdale College recently. His comments hearken back to what Dingel said namely that the aim of this Administration is to control the American People. The article is a bit lengthy but it provides a clear picture of what they are trying to do, and why this is a serious threat to sovereignty, liberty and property. Lawyers and judges may be the custodians of the Constitution, but in the final analysis it belongs to the American People and they need to defend it.
    The Coming Constitutional Debate

    Stephen Markman

    Proponents of a “21st century constitution” or “living constitution” aim to transform our nation’s supreme law beyond recognition—and with a minimum of public attention and debate. Indeed, if there is an overarching theme to what they wish to achieve, it is the diminishment of the democratic and representative processes of American government. It is the replacement of a system of republican government, in which the constitution is largely focused upon the architecture of government in order to minimize the likelihood of abuse of power, with a system of judicial government, in which substantive policy outcomes are increasingly determined by federal judges. Rather than merely defining broad rules of the game for the legislative and executive branches of government, the new constitution would compel specific outcomes.

    Yes, the forms of the Founders’ Constitution would remain—a bicameral legislature, periodic elections, state governments—but the important decisions would increasingly be undertaken by courts, especially by federal courts. It will be the California referendum process writ national, a process by which the decisions of millions of voters on matters such as racial quotas, social services funding, and immigration policy have been routinely overturned by single judges acting in the name of the Constitution—not the Framers’ Constitution, but a “constitution for our times,” a “living constitution,” resembling, sadly, the constitutions of failed and despotic nations across the globe.

    This radical transformation of American political life will occur, if it succeeds, not through high-profile court decisions resolving grand disputes of war and peace, abortion, capital punishment, or the place of religion in public life, but more likely as the product of decisions resolving forgettable and mundane disputes—the kind mentioned on the back pages of our daily newspapers, if at all. Let me provide a brief summary of six of the more popular theories of the advocates of the 21st century constitution. In particular, it is my hope here to inform ordinary citizens so that they will be better aware of the stakes. For while judges and lawyers may be its custodians, the Constitution is a document that is the heritage and responsibility of every American citizen.

    1. Privileges or Immunities Clause

    Since shortly after the Civil War, the privileges or immunities clause of the 14th Amendment has been understood as protecting a relatively limited array of rights that are a function of American federal citizenship, such as the right to be heard in courts of justice and the right to diplomatic protection. In defining the protections of the privileges or immunities clause in this manner, the Supreme Court in the Slaughterhouse Cases (1873) rejected the argument that the clause also protects rights that are a function of state citizenship, asserting that this would lead to federal courts serving as a “perpetual censor” of state and local governments. This decision has served as a bulwark of American federalism.

    Although a considerable amount of federal judicial authority has since been achieved over the states through interpretations of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, many proponents of a 21st century constitution seek additional federal oversight of state and local laws. Their strategy in this regard is to refashion the privileges or immunities clause as a new and essentially unlimited bill of rights within the 14th Amendment. The practical consequences of this would be to authorize federal judges to impose an ever broader and more stultifying uniformity upon the nation. Whatever modicum of federalism remains extant at the outset of this century, considerably less would remain tomorrow.

    2. Positive Rights

    For the 21st century constitutionalist, perhaps the greatest virtue of redefining the privileges or immunities clause is the prospect of transforming the Constitution from a guarantor of “negative liberties” into a charter of “affirmative government,” guaranteeing an array of “positive” rights. As President Obama has observed in a radio interview in criticism of the legacy of the Warren Court of the 1950s and 1960s, “[It] never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and . . . more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. . . . [T]he Warren Court . . . wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution. . . that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.”

    President Obama is correct. The Framers’ Constitution defines individual rights in terms of what the government cannot do to you. For example, the government cannot inflict cruel and unusual punishment, and therefore the individual has a constitutional right not to be subject to such punishment; the government cannot engage in unreasonable searches and seizures, and therefore the individual has a constitutional right not to be subject to such searches and seizures, and so forth. By contrast, the Framers’ Constitution does not guarantee rights to material goods such as housing, education, food, clothing, jobs, or health care—rights that place a related obligation upon the state to obtain the resources from other citizens to pay for them.

    Proponents of a 21st century constitution have many grievances with the individual rights premises of our Constitution as written—such as the largely procedural focus of the 14th Amendment’s due process clause, with its old-fashioned conception of such rights as those to “life, liberty, and property”; the negative cast of the specifically-defined rights in the Bill of Rights; and the limited application of the equal rights clause to things that have been enacted by legislatures (as opposed to things that they should have been required to enact). Each of these “limitations” poses significant barriers to what 21st century constitutionalists hope to achieve in reconfiguring America. This explains their interest in employing the privileges or immunities clause, which seems to them open-ended and susceptible to definition by judges at their own discretion.

    As various advocates of a 21st century constitution have urged, a privilege or immunity might be interpreted to allow the invention of a host of new “rights,” and thus be construed to guarantee social or economic equality. However pleasing this might sound to some people, there should be no mistake: adopting this interpretation will supplant representative decision-making with the decision-making of unelected, unaccountable, and life-tenured judges. Should the privileges or immunities clause be used in this way, as a charter of positive rights, ours will become an America in which citizens are constitutionally entitled to their neighbors’ possessions; in which economic redistribution has become as ingrained a principle as federalism and the separation of powers; in which the great constitutional issues of the day will focus on whether porridge should be subsidized and housing allowances reimbursed at 89 or 94 percent of the last fiscal year level; and in which a succession of new “rights” will be parceled out as people are deemed worthy of them by berobed lawyers in the judiciary.

    3. State Action

    A barrier posed by both the due process and the privileges or immunities clauses, and viewed as anachronistic by 21st century constitutionalists, is the requirement of state action as a precondition for the enforcement of rights. In the Civil Rights Cases (1883), another post-Civil War precedent, the Supreme Court asserted that these provisions of the 14th Amendment prohibited only the abridgment of individual rights by the state. “It is state action of a particular character that is prohibited. . . . The wrongful act of an individual is simply a private wrong and if not sanctioned in some way by the state, or not done under state authority, the [individual’s] rights remain in full force.” However, for advocates of 21st century constitutionalism, if fairness and equity are to be achieved, the Constitution must become more like a general legal code—applicable to both public and private institutions.

    Consider, for example, Hillsdale College. Despite being the embodiment of a thoroughly private institution, government officials have sought to justify the imposition of federal rules and regulations upon Hillsdale by characterizing the college as the equivalent of a state entity on the grounds that it received public grants-in-aid. When in response to this rationale, and in order to retain its independence, Hillsdale rejected further grants, the government then sought to justify its rules and regulations on the grounds that Hillsdale was the indirect beneficiary of grants-in-aid going to individual students, such as GI Bill benefits. Once again in response to this rationale, Hillsdale asserted its independence by barring its students from receiving public grants, even those earned as in the case of GI benefits, and instead bolstered its own private scholarship resources. We have witnessed a steadily more aggressive effort by governmental regulators to treat private institutions as the equivalent of the state, and thereby to extend public oversight.

    However, it would be more convenient simply to nullify the state action requirement altogether. Professor Mark Tushnet of Harvard Law School, for example, would reconsider the Civil Rights Cases:

    The state-action doctrine contributes nothing but obfuscation to constitutional analysis. It works as a bogeyman because it appeals to a vague libertarian sense that Americans have about the proper relation between them and their government. It seems to suggest that there is a domain of freedom into which the Constitution doesn’t reach. We would be well rid of the doctrine.

    If Professor Tushnet succeeds in this mission, Hillsdale’s policies concerning such things as tuition, admissions, faculty hiring, curriculum, and discipline will each have to pass the scrutiny, and receive the imprimatur, of judges.

    4. Political Questions

    In areas that were once viewed as inappropriate for judicial involvement, federal courts have begun to assert themselves in an unprecedented and aggressive manner. The limited role of the judiciary, for example, with regard to matters of national defense and foreign policy is not explicitly set forth in the Constitution, but such matters have from time immemorial been understood to be non-justiciable and within the exclusive responsibility of the elected branches of government. As far back as Marbury v. Madison (1803), Chief Justice John Marshall recognized that “Questions in their nature political . . . can never be made in this Court.”

    Yet just in the last several years, the Supreme Court, in a series of 5-4 decisions, has overruled determinations made by both the legislative and executive branches regarding the treatment of captured enemy combatants. Most notably, the Court ruled in Boumediene v. Bush (2008) that foreign nationals captured in combat and held outside the United States by the military as prisoners of war—a war authorized by the Congress under Article I, Section 8, and waged by the President as Commander-in-Chief under Article II, Section 2—possess the constitutional right to challenge their detentions in federal court. Thus, in yet one more realm of public policy—one on which the sovereignty and liberty of a free people are most dependent, national defense—judges have now begun to embark upon a sharply expanded role.

    If there is no significant realm left of “political questions,” if there are no longer any traditional limitations upon the exercise of the judicial power, then every matter coming before every president, every Congress, every governor, every legislature, and every county commission and city council can, with little difficulty, be summarily recast as a justiciable dispute, or what the Constitution, in Article III, Section 2, describes as a “case” or “controversy.” As a result, every policy debate taking place within government, at every level, will become little more than a prelude for judicial resolution.

    5. Ninth Amendment

    Another looming constitutional battleground concerns the meaning of the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Many 21st century constitutionalists understand this amendment to say that there is some unknown array of unenumerated rights that lie fallow in the Constitution, waiting only to be unearthed by far-sighted judges.

    Professor Thomas Grey of the Stanford Law School has suggested, for example, that the Ninth Amendment constitutes a “license to constitutional decisionmakers to look beyond the substantive commands of the constitutional text to protect fundamental rights not expressed therein.” Rights to abortion, contraception, homosexual behavior, and similar sexual privacy rights have already been imposed by judges detecting such rights in the Ninth Amendment. The problem is that, in the words of Justices Stewart and Black, this understanding of the amendment “turns somersaults with history” and renders the courts a “day-to-day constitutional convention.”

    The more conventional understanding of the Ninth Amendment has viewed it in the historical context of the Bill of Rights, of which it is a part. By this understanding, it was written to dispel any implication that by the specification of particular rights in the Bill of Rights, the people had implicitly relinquished to the new federal government rights not specified. Like the Tenth Amendment—which serves as a reminder that powers neither given to the federal government nor prohibited to the states in the Constitution are reserved to the states or to the people—the Ninth Amendment was adopted to emphasize that our national government is one of limited powers. Its principal purpose was to prevent an extension of federal power, not to provide an open-ended grant of judicial authority that would have the opposite effect.

    6. Transnationalism

    Professor Harold Koh of the Yale Law School, and now State Department Legal Counsel, is perhaps the leading proponent of what he calls “transnationalism,” which he contrasts with the “nationalist philosophy” that has characterized American constitutional law for the past 220 years.

    Transnationalists believe that international and domestic law are merging into a hybrid body of transnational law, while so-called nationalists persist in preserving a division between domestic and foreign law that respects the sovereignty of the United States. Transnationalists believe that domestic courts have a critical role to play in incorporating international law into domestic law, while so-called nationalists claim that only the political branches are authorized to domesticate international legal norms. Professor Koh predicts that these disagreements will play out in future Supreme Court confirmation hearings, and that these appointments will be “pivotal” in determining by 2020 the direction in which the jurisprudence of the United States proceeds.

    In practice, transnationalism would legitimize reliance by American judges upon foreign law in giving meaning to the United States Constitution; it would bind federal and state governments to international treaties and agreements that had never been ratified by the United States Senate much less enacted into law by the Congress; it would render both the domestic and international conduct of the United States increasingly beholden to the review and judgment of international tribunals in Geneva and the Hague; it would expose American soldiers and elected leaders to the sanctions of international law for “war crimes” and “violations of the Earth”; and it would replace the judgments of officials representing the American people, and holding paramount the interests of the United States, with the judgments of multinational panels of bureaucrats and judges finely balancing the interests of the U.S. with those of other nations—including authoritarian and despotic governments—throughout the world.

    * * *

    It is with the intention of generating debate, and of providing a roadmap to help us better navigate the constitutional forks-in-the-road that will soon be facing our nation, that I offer these thoughts. While there has never been a time in our history in which there was not serious constitutional debate among our people, I would submit that there have been few times in which this debate was more fundamental in defining the American experiment.

  69. linda192 over on the bitterpoliticz blog had saved the “Vampire” article that was
    written by William. Here it is again in its entirety.

    linda192 says:
    May 2, 2010 at 1:55 am
    Nomobama – 12.53

    Found this stored in my computer – hope it all prints.


    by William (second posting, back by popular request)

    Did you ever see the Alex Proyas movie “Dark City?” A wonderful, disturbing Dark Fantasy film. Some humans are living in an unknown place, where aliens daily create different identities for them, implanting them with false memories and narratives. “We use your dead for vessels,” one of them tells the protagonist who escapes the mental bondage. And he doesn’t mean that literally; the entire landscape is out of some fragmented noirish creation; with the created stories and identities seemingly taken from the popular fiction of the postwar era. The movie is compelling, unsettling and yet emotionally rewarding. Viewing it is certainly not necessary to understand the following, but it does add a certain enhancement.

    I think that the Barack Obama campaign is in engaged in doing the same thing. It is catering to a populace which has been dumbed down and taken out of any historical context by the relentless immediacy of television and pop culture, and feeding it scraps of a dimly perceived and remembered past. It is using language and images from our history to seduce people into seeing something which is not really there. Obama is being variously cast as the redeemer of our racial past; as the heir to the throne of Camelot; even as the messiah who will fix all the evils of the world. Only a foolish, ignorant and credulous populace would believe any of it. Surely the people of England and France are not intellectual geniuses; but one could never imagine them choosing a leader beause they thought he was the reincarnation of King Arthur or Charlemagne. But I swear that many people either literally or figuratively see Obama as Martin Luther King, John F. Kennedy or Jesus. That this lightweight intellectual and political figure could possibly have been invested with this kind of transcendency, is both a testament to the fiendish cleverness of his puppetmasters, and the utter vapidity of their target audience.

    Obama is a complete tabula raza; a blank slate upon which people are invited to project their own dreams and images. His history is murky; and in some key places, deliberately scrubbed. He has held few jobs; and almost no one comes forward to report on what he was like during the time he performed them. He has been cosseted and groomed and protected, every step of the way. He has been given immense sums of money from somewhere, perhaps foreign lands. He is given speeches to read off a teleprompter; when he doesn’t have it to rely on, he fumbles and stammers. He is a central casting candidate; an acceptable and gratifying image of our first Black President. He could have come from “24,” or some thriller movie. People who buy into those media creations, buy into Obama. They see in him what they think they want to see. He is said to speak like King; to have the handsomeness and aura of JFK. Most of the people who say that or see that, don’t remember either King or Kennedy, or the time in which they were important figures. Their images of the ’60’s are vague and skimpy, coming from old footage, or commercials designed to co-opt the period to sell some product. Many people of today have a yearning for the ’60’s, because it seemed exciting, full of color and hope. That has been exploited by Obama’s campaign, which seeks to create a wholly fabricated image of him, put together like a collage, using the language and metaphors of that era.

    Obama is given speeches which talk about “hope” and “change.” That is part of the ’60’s mystique. All the allusions to Kennedy and to Camelot are intended to do that as well. The JFK Administration was never Camelot, nor was it a magical time. There were some good things, and there was hope and a sense of possibility. But the people who are responding to it were either very young during that period, or were not alive at all. They are the same kind of people who think that Scarlet Johannson is Marilyn Monroe, because she is made to somewhat resemble her. And they don’t remember Martin Luther King, either; do not really know what his political positions were, other than the famous “Dream” speech. A Black man who speaks in a baritone, with cadenced phrases, is a suitable stand-in. And all the inchoate New Age messianic dreams are also allowed to be embodied in the figure of Obama, as his websites are frighteningly imbued with messianic and religious images and icons. People who have no idea what is wrong with the country or the world; what concrete economic and geopolitical issues we have to face, are easily seduced by the idea of a magical figure who is an amalgam of all those fuzzy images they have; who is a combination of Kennedy, King, Jesus, whomever else they admire; maybe John Lennon and Denzel Washington, too, who knows? Anything but what Obama really is, with all his limitations and inadequacies.

    And the bitterest of ironies is that the real embodiment of the ’60s hope and sense of unlimited possibility, is Hillary Clinton, the person whom Obama’s acolytes love to dismiss and disparage. It was Clinton, the daughter of Republican parents, the former teenage “Goldwater Girl,” who grew on her own, and learned to embrace progressive Democratic ideals. She was the one who went to Wellesley and later Yale Law School during the cauldron of the late ’60’s and early ’70’s. She was an attorney on staff at the time of the momentous Watergate hearings. She of course was an integral part of the Bill Clinton Administration. She is the last viable political descendant of Franklin Roosevelt and his working people-centered New Deal. She not only is descended from it by virtue of a developed political philosophy, she truly understands it, and all that has followed. She has a brilliant grasp of both history and political matters. Obama has neither; although he desperately attemps to place himself squarely in historical context by making up stories. He was conceived as a result of the Selma march. His grandfather, or was it his uncle, liberated Auschwitz. He is thus The One, a person whom God or History has chosen for this moment. Of course, that is what the right-wing evangelists were saying about George Bush after 9/11; that God had chosen him to save us. It’s not true; it’s never true. It is only in this overly religious country, which has little sense of history or the rest of the world, that people like Bush and Obama can feed off this poignant but ignorant and destructive yearning.

    If one looks at the ongoing Obama campaign in this context, it is very revealing. Apparently now Ms. Obama’s hair is being styled to look like Jacqueline Kennedy’s. You can lay heavy odds that his acceptance speech at the convention will be said to evoke Kennedy’s Inaugural, King’’s Dream, maybe even The Sermon on the Mount. I could write Chris Matthews’ remarks for him two months in advance. The soaring rhetoric. The call to a new era. The invoking of the giants of the past: Lincoln, Roosevelt, Kennedy. “The audacity of hope.” “The clarion bells of change.” “The need to transcend race, transcend ideology; to move to a shared destiny of purpose.” Maybe they can even find some old speeches from long ago from which they can crib some lines. Not many people will know, and less will care. “We use your dead for vessels.” Obama and his campaign take fragments from the American collective popular memory; reconfigure them in his image. Hillary Clinton, who embodies the best of the modern American narrative, apparently cannot compete with the power of the vampire campaign which feeds on the words and the memories of both the living and the dead.

  70. Just listening to the news conference in New York on the car bomb…Bloomberg was a real snotty…maybe he is really stressed, but he sure snips at people.

    The license plate on the car is not the match to that car and the vin number has been ‘removed’.

    Said it could have been a very dangerous bomb…

  71. OMG, Why can’t we just all grow up and realize that while we have the same OVERALL opinion, we differ in many ways….this is what almost drove me off this blog…if we don’t constantly differ in our opinions then we are merely the Obama administration….Its OK if Wbboei has to qualify his statements….its ok if Basement Angel disagrees…this is why we are here on this blog…this time in history…gimme a break…I’ve disagreed with basement angel many times and disagreed with wbboei many MORE times that doesn’t mean that I don’t want to hear from them both, each has their own agenda which BTW is how we should be contemplating the state of the UNION….lets NOT stifle the arguement.

  72. Shadowfax…well looks like the sheeet is about to hit the proverbial fan for the boy POTUS!! He just thinks he can’t sleep now….just wait more sheeet is on the way!!! He better wake up Hillary!

  73. tim
    Yes. JFK would not be a democrat today in the far left version that exists now. He was a pretty conservative democrat, he would be absolutely stunned at the radicalism, the apologizing for America that is now in the fool in the WH’s version of the democrat party.


    If THAT’s what you mean by ‘far left’…! That’s an image Obama likes to wear. That and race-baiting.

    But his ACTIONS are not leftist. He betrays us left/progressives at every chance. (WEll, those that voted for him.)

    Calling him leftist or socialist etc is to give him an underserved compliment. And it gives him undeserved votes, by reassuring those leftists who are still accepting his facade.

  74. Basement and Wbboei are both posting great stuff. Keep up the good work, both of you!

  75. I don’t know how many more ways one can say socialism isn’t all bad, and Obama is a


    Well, the more ways the better, till more people get it. Might say ‘corporatist tool’.

  76. basement angel
    It’s the working class that supports programs like Social Security, Medicare and student loan programs – all three socialist inventions


    THanks for your clarity as usual. At least I suppose you’re right. 😉

  77. turndownobama
    May 2nd, 2010 at 3:30 am

    basement angel
    It’s the working class that supports programs like Social Security, Medicare and student loan programs – all three socialist inventions


    THanks for your clarity as usual. At least I suppose you’re right.


    But otoh, some people don’t see SS and Medicare as ‘socialistic’. What distinction are they making? Is it because each person gets something based on what he has paid in?

    And, some people might say that even Medicaid is not socialistic — but being forced to buy health insurance from private companies is socialistic.

    Any ideas how not to confuse these people?

  78. confloyd
    May 2nd, 2010 at 2:36 am
    I like to read everyone’s posts. I may not always agree, but there is enough dissension in the world without it coming between all of us here. And when I don’t agree, I try to express myself politely without going for the jugular.

    basement angel has every right to post here just as we all do, but going on the attack and demeaning someone the way he/she did above is not necessary. Disagree yes. But don’t use personal insults to get your messages across.

  79. The analogy to Colin Powell is an excellent one. He ruined his reputation and credibility working for Bush. Hillary had stronger credentials and reputation going into this and hopefully she will get out.

  80. BTW, the media seem to be really pimping for the anti Arizona immigration law trying to promote the concept that there is widespread unhappiness with the law. I think it is going to backfire.

  81. Hillary did not sound very convincing on MTP when Gregory asked her if she plans on staying the whole first term as SOS…she even equivocated by saying she would take it month by month (paraphrase) or something to that effect (will need to check transcript but that was the impression she left)

    …btw…the MSM reaction to O and his performance at the WHCD was even worse than I thought it would be…i woke up to see MSNBC with a whole show devoted to the ‘morning after’ (as if they were talking about the Oscars) and Mika and Joe S going Hollywood in black sunglasses and everyone just RAVING about how great O was – which i notice is being repeated and repeated and repeated (memories of the primaries and brainwashing)…”he hit it out of the part” “better than Leno” bla, bla…(meanwhile at least cnn and fox were reporting bomb threats and oil spill, but not MSNBC – shameless and unbelievable) Joe S has become a major O suck up and sellout…he must be getting paid mucho dinero…(thought it was interesting that one of the pundits commented that while at “the dinner” O and the rest of them were oblivious to bomb threat in NYC…

    gee, that’s reassuring…the party must go on at all costs…do not disturb

  82. My cable was out this morning so I did not get to see Hillary on tv this am…so I hope someone posts it.
    Did she say she was going to look at it on a month to month basis?

  83. You can watch the entire show with Hillary at the following link, Confloyd, but you may have to register. (it’s a Hillary forum, but like bitterpoliticz, is password protected.)

    h t t p://

  84. How about a little humor on a dreary day and the atmospheric rancor on this precious site for free speech and devotion to our Hillary.This is not a debating society but a voice for our girl.A little humor?


    atton staggered home very late after another evening with his drinking buddy, Paddy He took off his shoes to avoid waking his wife, Kathleen.

    He tiptoed as quietly as he could toward the stairs leading to their upstairs bedroom, but misjudged the bottom step. As he caught himself by grabbing the banister, his body swung around and he landed heavily on his rump. A whiskey bottle in each back pocket broke and made the landing especially painful.

    Managing not to yell, Patton sprung up, pulled down his pants, and looked in the hall mirror to see that his butt cheeks were cut and bleeding. He managed to quietly find a full box of Band-Aids and began putting a Band-Aid as best he could on each place he saw blood.

    He then hid the now almost empty Band-Aid box and shuffled and stumbled his way to bed.

    In the morning, Patton woke up with searing pain in both his head and butt and Kathleen staring at him from across the room.

    She said, ‘You were drunk again last night weren’t you?’

    Patton said, ‘Why you say such a mean thing?’

    ‘Well,’ Kathleen said, ‘it could be the open front door, it could be the broken glass at the bottom of the stairs, it could be the drops of blood trailing through the house, it could be your bloodshot eyes, but mostly ….. it’s all those Band-Aids stuck on the hall mirror.


    Confloyd…you can see what Hillary said at this site…click on the part about her and the supreme court…when gregory presses Hill about staying on for the full first term she eventually says ask me in about a month and then ask me again the next month, etc…she is her adorable, smart coy self…

  86. S, I have said before (months or more ago) that my dream would be for Hillary to wait until the most opportune time, when Obama was tanking, and publicly walk away from this administration. Can you say “death blow”?

    The media would go berserk, and scream and gnash their teeth that it was petty revenge. But I’d love to see her do it – be the thing that utterly sank the boob just before 2012.

  87. S…I can only get that clip at the Termlimits website to work for 10 seconds. 🙁

  88. One of the largest problems we have in this country is the politicians of both political parties treat the American people like children rather than as adults.

    Take the health care issue for example. The facts are that we have a problem whatever we decide to do. That problem is the direct result of many factors, but three of them are paramount: i) demographics–which will produce a huge number of retirees over the next twenty years, relative to the population at large, ii) longevity–the fact that people are living longer, and need more medical treatment, iii) technology–the high cost of new machines for diagnostic purposes. The cumulative effect of this, and the coverage of illegals under Obamacare will bankrupt the country if it is not addressed.

    For the most part however that is not how the political system portrays it to the American People. Instead of explaining the situation to the American People so they understand it, and then proceeding incrementally one step at a time, the Dimocrarts have created a political disaster for themselves and a policy nightmare for the American People. Lest we forget, here is the delightful choreography they used to produce “the greatest civil rights victory in a generation”:

    1. begin by promising transparency, and negotiations on c-span

    2. then turn around and cut a secret Rezko type deal with big business to raise cost and limit competition

    3. then hold town hall meetings to deliver bullshit talking points, and fail to answer questions

    4. then profess to be shocked at the negative reaction from the great unwashed

    5. then characterize the those who peacefully assemble to proposed policy, i.e. tea parties as “racists” and “terrorists”,

    6. then use their union henchmen to beat up those people and boycott businesses whose owners speak against it,

    7. then let the insurance companies draft a 2700 page bill full of gotchas,

    8. then use phony accounting assumptions to claim that the bill will lower medical costs,

    9. then bribe members of their own party to vote for this Lockness monster legislation

    10.then force Congress to vote on it without reading it

    11.then pass the legislation without a single vote from the other party

    13.then rub it in the noses of the other side by strutting through their ranks and trying to provoke an incident

    14.then use a broken down man to lie about someone using a racial epithet which they cannot prove

    15.then proclaim this the greatest civil rights victory in 50 years

    16.then summon before Congress business leaders who say the bill will raise medical costs to intimidate them

    16.finally admit what they consistently denied prior to passage, namely that Obamacare will raise the costs of insurance.

    This is not governance. It is pure unadulterated duplicity. And it emanates from Obama himself. No one else. He is the epitome of it. And that is what everyone with a brain needs to understand. The estimable Michael Barone, author of the Almanac of American Politics summed it up in these terms: “takes from the politically unprotected and gives to the politically connected”. We must stop pretending he is Robinhood.

  89. basement angel said:
    The working class is not center right. Overall, they are center left.


    This has got be the most preposterous comment I’ve seen lately. They all seem to be coming from you. I guess you weren’t around when I was growing up. I’m the daughter of a father who was a steamfitter/plumber for over 30 years, belonged to a union (because he had to not because he “wanted” to) and was not only a Republican but a Conservative all his life.

    YOU do not speak for the working class. You also don’t know what “qualifies” for the working class these days. I find your comment to be condescending and ignorant but don’t let that stop you from revealing how one-dimensional your view of politics and people truly is.

    You don’t know who the working man/woman is or how they feel. Somebody’s out of touch and it certainly isn’t people like my father. Get a clue.

  90. give Hill some time.
    she will jump ship when its time and sink zero.
    sadly he probably realizes this and will use her to shill for his attack on Israel.
    it all comes down to timing and the coming elections.
    I really am hoping he will be exposed for the fraud he is and impeached before his term is up.

  91. “The working class is not center right. Overall, they are center left.”
    the working class is conservative leaning.
    the welfare class is liberal leaning.

Comments are closed.