We might be delicate and demure but we haven’t the unyielding good taste of a Radcliffe girl. We’re being rude now, aren’t we? Or should we say “ain’t we”?
Every time we declare that Barack Obama and Michelle Obama must be attacked at every level, policy-wise AND PERSONALLY, the governesses emerge to hit us over our pink heads with etiquette books.
Speaking of books, don’t you think it delicious irony that Barack Obama who throughout 2007/2008 declared he wanted to “turn the page” from, to him, dreary fights over such, to him, minor fluff like civil rights, women’s rights, war and peace – now might get to experience Newt Gingrich in the raw?
In a remarkable article published today in the New Yorker magazine Ryan Lizza writes about good ol’ “turn the page”:
“In 2006, Obama published a mild polemic, “The Audacity of Hope,” which became a blueprint for his 2008 Presidential campaign. He described politics as a system seized by two extremes. “Depending on your tastes, our condition is the natural result of radical conservatism or perverse liberalism,” he wrote. “Tom DeLay or Nancy Pelosi, big oil or greedy trial lawyers, religious zealots or gay activists, Fox News or the New York Times.” He repeated the theme later, while describing the fights between Bill Clinton and the Newt Gingrich-led House, in the nineteen-nineties: “In the back-and-forth between Clinton and Gingrich, and in the elections of 2000 and 2004, I sometimes felt as if I were watching the psychodrama of the Baby Boom generation—a tale rooted in old grudges and revenge plots hatched on a handful of college campuses long ago—played out on the national stage.” Washington, as he saw it, was self-defeatingly partisan. He believed that “any attempt by Democrats to pursue a more sharply partisan and ideological strategy misapprehends the moment we’re in.”
If there was a single unifying argument that defined Obamaism from his earliest days in politics to his Presidential campaign, it was the idea of post-partisanship. He was proposing himself as a transformative figure, the man who would spring the lock. In an essay published in The Atlantic, Andrew Sullivan, a self-proclaimed conservative, reflected on Obama’s heady appeal: “Unlike any of the other candidates, he could take America—finally—past the debilitating, self-perpetuating family quarrel of the Baby Boom generation that has long engulfed all of us.”
Obama thought he was the Messiah that would deliver us from discussion of major issues that divided parties and ideological world views. Presumably all that time not invested in arguing over issues of life and death, war and peace, would be turned into time at the temple burning incense to the new divinity from Chicago and his lantern-jawed sack of corruption wife.
Yes, it will be delicious irony if Barack Obama gets to battle with the man Bill Clinton crushed. Republicans can rejoice because Barack Obama is no Bill Clinton.
Also delicious is the very fact of what is in the Ryan Lizza article – secret Obama memoranda never before published. Delicious because someone is leaking in an election year and it’s someone who knows where the bodies are buried. Which brings us to Hillary Clinton and why Obama and sleeveless Mary Todd need to be attacked on a personal level.
Ryan Lizza’s article published today will not surprise anyone who has been reading Big Pink. In June 2007 Tim Russert attacked this site on Meet the Press immediately after we published “Obama’s Dirty Mud Politics.” We outlined David Axelrod’s dirty history and Obama’s dirty history of mud politics in that article. Weasel Zippers succinctly wraps the Ryan Lizza’s theme that Republicans better understand:
“Memo Written By Axelrod Shows Obama Agreed To Character Assassination Tactics Against Hillary In 2008 Dem Primary Despite Campaign Promises…
Even his ”Change We Can Believe In” slogan was meant as a slur against her.“
Here’s another article we wrote about the Obama race-baiting and revelations by Tucker Carlson: “The Obama Race-Baiting History And Other Truths Emerge, Part I.”
“But let me just say, very clearly, it was the Obama campaign that first bought up the race question. It was the Obama people who smeared the Clintons as racists, Bill and Hillary Clinton. They made the case to reporters off-the-record, including me, that the Clintons were racists. They started this“.
As we wrote, we don’t believe in unilateral disarmament. Watch the video in this article of an angry Bill Clinton talking about Obama calling Hillary “the Senator from Punjab” and accusing Bill Clinton of profiteering on 9/11 – in anonymous memos.
Anne Coulter is repeatedly warning Republicans that Newt Gingrich is a monster. We agree. However he might be the monster with the message.
Coulter is also saying that voters for Newt Gingrich “rather have the emotional satisfaction of a snotty remark toward the president than to beat Obama in the fall.” Emotional satisfaction is not the reason people are voting for Gingrich and cheering him on.
People are voting and cheering on Newt Gingrich because he is saying what must be said. Most importantly Newt Gingrich understands that he must attack Barack Obama before Barack Obama does worse to him. It’s eat or be eaten.
Romney might win over independents more easily than Newt. But Bill Clinton has words of wisdom that Republicans must learn from: “It’s better to be strong and wrong, than weak and right.”
We can already hear the protestations that “we are better than this”. No we are not honey. That is the world were are in. Newt and the Republicans began the politics of personal destruction. Bill Clinton knocked Newt down.
Barack Obama is even slimier than Newt Gingrich ever was. Obama digs dirt on sex and haircuts then pretends he is clean and wonderful. He’s not. Barack Obama is dirty. Michelle Obama is dirtier. They are both as ugly as it gets.
Tonight the Republicans debate and it might be the nastiest debate yet. The debate is in the Sunshine State in Tampa.
We wish American politics was a sermon on the mount. But they’re not. “We are all busy little bees, full of stings, making honey day and night. Aren’t we honey?“