Yes He Can
All right, fine, I’ll concede, I’m a believer! For the first time in this eternal campaign Barack Obama has finally proven that he is, in fact, the “change” candidate. In his boldest attempt yet (surely not his last) to unify the country and usher in a new era of post-partisan politics, Barack Obama has redefined what it means to be a Democrat, a redefinition with significant implications for the party’s future, yet few are talking about it. Why aren’t we talking about the fact that Obama and his advisors have suggested he may fill the role of Secretary of Defense with two, lifelong, conservative Republicans? Because you have a crush on Obama. He’s taken you out on a few dates, made you blush with his charm, and it hasn’t yet crossed your mind that he may be using you. I’m not talking about fantastic conspiracy theories of the neoconservative variety; I’m talking about the type of tactics that have hypocritically been used to label Hillary as insincere, but should be redirected toward Mr. Insincere himself, Barack Obama.
Last year, when it appeared as though HRC was a shoo-in for the nomination, she was criticized for moving to the center. Those on the left felt that she had abandoned the party, the primaries, and shifted into a new gear that was suited for the general election, they felt used. But if you’re even remotely familiar with Clintonian politics you weren’t shocked; moderation is synonymous with Clintonian politics. After his latest sweep of 11 straight primaries Obama felt he was the shoo-in and we saw him adopt a similarly moderate (though markedly more conservative) approach to the general that he felt was vital to his victory in November. This strategy that finds Obama cheating on you with the GOP culminated in the recent fatuous suggestion that staunch conservatives should fill his cabinet and yet, no backlash against a man who claims he’s the man for change? The lack of response has several possible explanations.
No matter what kind of stunts Obama pulls during the course of his campaign, no one can be surprised; we don’t know a thing about the guy. Even what we do know about him and his paltry political career doesn’t reflect the realities of today (he previously supported Palestine, a loyalty he has recently forgotten about as he’s been busy kissing the asses of the well financed Israeli lobby). He’s a less offensive version of Mitt Romney (he’s even part of a fanatical, racist church, also not unlike Romney). So one explanation is that no one was surprised. Taking this theory a step further, there is a healthy supply of evidence that indicates Obama is running a nearly identical campaign as Hillary (he’s surrounded with former Clintonites), so when he pulls something out of the Clinton playbook (Republican Sec. of Defense) we again remain benumbed. So why is it that people remain inspired? No, really, why? More importantly, why the hypocrisy?
Another explanation, one which I’ve heard several Obama supporters voice, is that this is simply a ploy to entice Republicans over to our side. This is the type of demagoguery that makes the Obama campaign dangerous. He speaks condescendingly of the Clinton years, but he’s a Clinton. The difference is the Clintons’ moderation and willingness to occasionally concede to the right isn’t done under the veil of vague rhetoric and it’s done shrewdly. When President Clinton appointed William Cohen, a Republican, as the Secretary of Defense, he did so in a time where the GOP was credible in handling foreign policy (Bush I did a better than average job). Obama is doing so at a time where the Republican Party is responsible for two failed wars, the loss of American hegemony and credibility, and when both Dick Lugar and Chuck Hagel’s idea of defense includes violating the constitution (FISA and retroactive immunity); again, no backlash.
Wake up! The joke is on you, but the joke isn’t a joke, we’re talking about the future of our party and our country. Obama isn’t transforming anything, other than your brain into a machine whose sustenance is his bullshit. Obama is setting a terrible precedent for future party leaders. He’s cloaking traditional Democratic politics (mostly hijacked from the Clintons) in romantic language that suggests he’s an innovator, but he’s a crook and a fraud. If you want the same politics without the lies, vote for Hillary.
Share »
4 Comments »
-
This is over the top:
“He’s a less offensive version of Mitt Romney (he’s even part of a fanatical, racist church, also not unlike Romney).”
I don’t think it is fair or accurate to describe Mormonism or the Trinity United Church of Christ as fanatical or racist. Even if there are criticisms that can be made of those institutions I don’t think that this is the right basis on which to criticize either Obama or Romney members.
“he’s a crook…”
Care to back that up? I think this kind of rhetoric is harmful.
//
Michael Bishop -
While it’s not entirely common practice for Presidents to fill a Cabinet role with a member from the opposing party, it’s not entirely out of line, out of step with previous Presidents, nor should it be so surprising or labeled so “hypocritical.”
It’s unclear what the argument is here and much of it demonstrates a mis-understanding of just how campaigns are run and how working government is supposed to work. It’s not a conspiracy that hopeful presidential nominees attempt to attract and work with the party across the aisle on mutual-interest issues or that they use the same people to do so (This is called opposition negotiating or working the aisle or, more idealistically, consensus or coalition building. Front room and back room deals like this are made in your ward and in restaurants in D.C. Get over it Mr. Beck) - It is critical to the workings of government that they figure out how to build, if not a coalition on certain issues, than a consensus to move forward on controversial and mutual interest issues. This is how government works. If Mr. Beck’s rhetoric were true, we would still be arguing about inter-state highways. Ask your local Alderman or your state Senator. In addition, to declare or assume that both parties SHOULD not work together because they ARE opposition parties is inherently tribal and dangerous civic thinking. Although, it does tempt and woo public and media attention, (turn on MSNBC, CNN, FOX, right about…now). This could be Mr. Beck’s underlying motive.
Yes, I agree with Mr. Beck that our current administration cannot nor should not have been trusted with foreign affairs and that we should be wary of working with those who, over 7 years, have damaged US credibility, economy, and liberty; however, Chuck Hagel (like many independently minded and moderate Republicans) is not exactly Bush Co and we should be careful that our wariness does not spill into I-Refuse-To-Consider-You divisiveness. Hilary and Obama are not stupid -they know a right wing Cabinet member would be unacceptable to both their voters (Mr. Beck is not exactly a rogue journalist making people see the light here) as well as their party elders. This is from the exact Times Online article Mr. Beck linked,“Chuck Hagel, the Republican senator for Nebraska and an opponent of the Iraq war…”
Hagel may be a friend of McCain, but he opposed the war during an unpopular time to do so. Not exactly rank and file here.
Mr. Obama is not “cheating” on me with the GOP; he is essentially interviewing for the highest office; however distasteful that may be to soldiers of the far right and left. Anyone who has ever interviewed for a job or had job with consequence can understand the maxim “I know how to work with others…” It’s also unclear to me why journalists, bloggers, and journalist-bloggers follow the lead of campaign advisers and pundits by directly attacking a candidate-“Obama isn’t transforming anything, other than your brain into a machine whose sustenance is his bullshit.”
“…but he’s a crook and a fraud.”
Unprofessional blogging and journalism at its near worst, and, at its best, Mr. Beck, you are undermining your entire perspective and point, which, better researched, experienced, and lettered, could be an interesting dialogue on when its beneficial and when its not for Presidents and Presidential nominees to choose Cabinet members from the other party.
//
Mike Z -
I think YOU’RE the one missing the point, Mr. Z. You’re seeing only what you want to see.
You start by mentioning that it’s not entirely out of line, yet a few lines down you say, “Yes, I agree with Mr. Beck that our current administration cannot nor should not have been trusted with foreign affairs and that we should be wary of working with those who, over 7 years, have damaged US credibility, economy, and liberty” — -So it is out of line in the context of this election.“It’s not a conspiracy that hopeful presidential nominees attempt to attract and work with the party across the aisle on mutual-interest issues or that they use the same people to do so” — I don’t suggest it’s a conspiracy, in fact, I even mentioned William Cohen. What I am suggesting is that Obama who claims to be a transformative figure is virtually the same, tactic-wise as Hillary.
“Obama isn’t transforming anything, other than your brain into a machine whose sustenance is his bullshit.”
“…but he’s a crook and a fraud.”
Unprofessional blogging and journalism at its near worst.
As for this, it was simply a callous literary device to depict the mindlessness with which Obama supporters follow his empty rhetoric, the crook and fraud comments were summing up the previous point that he has hijacked Clintonian strategy and pawned it off as his own = crook and fraud.
While you choose to criticize my journalistic talents, perhaps the “comments” you leave should be “better lettered”, as you put it.
//
Matthew Beck (author)
I would just like to remind everyone the Hilary has made similar remarks about including Republicans in her cabinet. I aim to expose that their are far more similarities between the candidates then there are difference. Rather then attack Obama or Hilary, why don’t we question the intense animosity on both sides? Democrats, and I speak primarily anecdotally here, who suggest that if their candidate doesn’t win the primaries then the will throw their support behind a third party instead. Ridiculous! With such vast similarities it is bizarre to see people love one so much and hate the other equally.
Also, I am waiting for a citation for the claim that Obama is a member of a racist church. Even if this is true, the comparison to Rodney is laughable. The similarity, if it exists, is a shallow one; on the other hand Obama’s similarities to Hilary are more far more important and substantive.
Why the hate, child?
6 March 2008 at 4:20 pm