Someone please put out an APB.
By Erick Posted in 2008 — Comments (23) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
In addition to Barack Obama and Oprah Winfrey needing food tasters and car starters, we better start adding some editors of prominent newspapers to the list.
The Atlanta-Journal Constitution has endorsed Barack Obama.
The State, South Carolina's largest newspaper has done the same.
And now, in New York City, the New York Observer has endorsed Barack Obama. In their editorial, the paper notes:
We believe that Mr. Obama’s idealism and fresh ideas would ensure that the end of the Bush era would also mean an end to government by secrecy, Cheneyism, arrogance, oligarchy; an end to mindless armed unilateralism abroad; an end to the blustering, rank partisan disputes of the last quarter-century.Mr. Obama has found his strength in the generation that succeeded the baby boomers, speaking for the frustrations of those who wish that their leaders would get over themselves, get over the 1960’s, get on with resolving issues that threaten our global leadership. Mr. Obama is an inclusive figure at a time when our popular culture demands that we embrace a new America while still comprehending the lessons of hard-won history—from World War II through the fall of the Berlin Wall—that have brought us to a free world in 2008.
The paper only mentions Mrs. Bill Clinton twice -- in reference to why voters should not vote for her.
So, while their reasons are couched as a repudiation of Bush and "Cheneyism," a/k/a effective leadership, the period they reference is the last "quarter century." And right smack in the middle of that quarter century was the Clinton White House.
Notice also how the Observer lumps the Bushes and Bill Clinton all into one governing philosophy: that of "government by secrecy, Cheneyism, arrogance, oligarchy; an end to mindless armed unilateralism abroad; an end to the blustering, rank partisan disputes." They go on to further repudiate Mrs. Bill Clinton as a product of the sixties while Obama is beyond the sixties.
I'd be none too happy if I were in the Clinton camp today, and I'd be joining the witness protection program if I were an editor at the Observer.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Thursday night's GOP debate and analysis — Comments (29) »
Someone please put out an APB. 23 Comments (0 topical, 23 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
These days, a tired and grumpy Bill Clinton can barely constrain himself when talking about Obama because he's well aware of the "fairy tale" quality of Obama's campaign and from precisely which quarters it has been spun. But he only lets fly with those comments when he's tired and irritated.
Happily, I don't have to restrain myself any longer. I can speak candidly about what I know about how Obama was the Tiger Beat candidate for aging '60s boomer intellectuals who saw their opportunity and had a big crush on him, before he became the Senator from Illiois. It really sticks in Bill and Hillary's craw. It hurts them every single day.
I've heard from this website many times that what conservatives want out of the Democrats is not necessarily someone that they can vote for -- let's face it, that won't happen -- but a return to the "respectable" JFK-type Democrat. Now kowalski, you may never have said such a thing. But when people, whether characterized as "aging '60s-era intelligentsia" or not, think Obama reminds them of the 1960's I would imagine it's not Woodstock or the Chicago convention they're talking about, I can't imagine how his demeanor or message would recall those images. I imagine it's JFK that Obama recalls, though a lot of that is just media narrative and speaking ability. And I don't see why that particular recall, albeit from a Liberal of the 60s, is a problem.
I'm 25, I happily have no memory of the 1960's or their immediate aftermath. If I thought for a second that Barack Obama would bring back that harrowing time of general cultural excess and stupidity -- or even give mere comfort or nostalgic bliss to the particular kind of faux-revolutionary aging boomer hippies that wrecked the left for decades -- I wouldn't support him like I do. He's sane, strong, and had no part whatsoever in that mess.
suit known as Bobby Kennedy.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
And I'm sure if RedState were around in 1960 some users would use their valuable time to say nasty things about JFK, too. I'm sure there are plenty of people who have all sorts of clever things to say about JFK, RFK, and FDR, and all manner of Democrats. I understand perfectly that vicious things can be said about the other side, I don't need proofs.
FDR: The lying socialist? The man ran on a balanced budget for crying out loud.
JFK: The drug addicted adulterer?
RFK: The empty suited beneficiary of nepotism?
I merely meant on blogs sometimes -- and I'm guilty of this too, of course -- a discussion is underway and then all of a sudden someone inserts a clever insult against the opposing party and thinks incorrectly that they've made a point. And that would've happened no matter when blogs were invented. That was my point. I'm sure lots of people signed onto RedState right now have lots of, uh, negative opinions of Democratic politicians past, present, and future. That really isn't the conversation that's going on here, I don't think. Or at least that isn't the one I'm having at the moment, so I'm not really going to bother defending against non-sequiters except to dismiss them. I'm just not sure what attacking them adds to this particular thread. But hey, it's not my site...
and The Nation back in the early sixties. Get off your high horse, surrender the righteous indignation, neither magazine was enamored of Kennedy, far from it.
I do hope your revulsion of things vicious extends to some of the filth leveled at Bush and Cheney, and to Republicans in general. Otherwise, heh, you fill in the rest. I could even come up with a sample or two from a former President who now busies himself with one Barack Obama at the present moment.
After you finish correcting Bill and Hillary and a few others in your party, then you may, with such energy as you have left, turn to Redstate and share with us your wisdom and tolerance.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
for you. Let me dumb down a bit. The old liberals stroking over Obama would have thought JFK way too establishment for their tastes had he lived. They were more the RFK empty suit idealists that had to migrate to Clean Gene and Georgie Porgie. Obama reminds me of the RFK hype and type. All show and no go.
President Obama? Pee down his leg the first time he has to face reality.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
Obama appeals to their Age of Aquarius/Janis Joplin/Sly and the Family Stone Countercultural mythos. Hillary has too much baggage, and her negatives were enormous back in 2000/2001. Along comes Obama, a mixed-race Hawaiian Harvard graduate, an articulate man who could transplant himself into Illinois politics, take the Fast Track to the U.S. Senate due to the self-destruction of the Illinois Republican Party, and carry the torch of the Kumbaya dream right to the U.S. Presidency.
I've said many times, and I still think it's true, that when Obama was in embryo for President, nobody in the Democratic party really thought Hillary would run in either 2004 or 2008. They were looking for a fresh face and importantly, someone they could hang all their myths around, the presto-chango canidate who could be anything to everyone.
That's Obama.
I think there's no real use in drawing this out, we just simply disagree, but mostly I just don't think that...
Obama appeals to their Age of Aquarius/Janis Joplin/Sly and the Family Stone Countercultural mythos.
...is particularly true. I think if it were true Obama would have had more success. He gets plaudits, perhaps, for his multicultural background, but apparently not votes.
People are more outspoken about how he's "different" and that it's time for a "new era" of politics, but that's really just setting him up in opposition to Clinton, as opposed to seeing him as the prophet of the New, delayed for 40 years, Age. In other words, it's just the flipside of Hillary's "experience" argument as opposed to a substantive relationship with the hippies' nostalgia.
And I don't see where the "countercultural myth" support would even come from, or that it even exists especially for Obama. the bulk of his supporters were not of an age where they could possibly have nostalgia for the 1960's after all. The bulk of his supporters, in fact, disdain the excesses of the past and the baby boomer politicians it spawned! I think those 1960's faux-radical sorts of people are split evenly among the candidates -- maybe Edwards has a slight advantage? -- because they have no where else to go until Nader runs again. I think they're divided equally, you just hear more of the ones that support Obama because his candidacy happens to fit -- through no fault of Obama's -- their view of the world.
...of democratization and regime change, and lower my taxes?
I know, I know: it looks positively goofy when you see that just written out like that. Everybody knows that the Democratic Party's interest in Jack Kennedy starts and ends with how to make their candidates sound like him, and at that they concentrate solely on getting the tone right. Actually trying to emulate a pre-peacenik Democrat would be an economic disaster for them.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
I don't have the time or, I'll admit, ability to take all comers on this and I don't want to blogjack. So I'll just note that I think Obama will be centrist on both domestic and foreign policy. I think he'll be willing to deconstruct and destroy the terrorist networks before they overtly threaten us and will be willing to work with Independents and Republicans through rough patches of policy debates. Aside from the leftward posturing necessary for a primary season -- you've got your own rightward posturing going on in yours right now -- that I don't put any faith in at all, I haven't really seen that my belief in that centrist mindset is fundamentally misguided. There's too much to do with the "tone" in the link between pre-1960/70's Liberals and Obama. But I see something deeper than speaking style and poise. I see the opportunity for good, sturdy policy built of consensus. You disagree.
...if elected; he's just lying to the progressives and the antiwar people because he figures that he can get away with it.
What else do you think that he's lying about?
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
The heavy-breathing Donks were very, very concerned and frightened about the party leaking Black votes to the Republicans. Above all else, that had to be stopped. So the search went into overdrive.
The JFK image is too old, establishment, even conservative, and even stylish womanizing can't save him as anything other than an ancient saint. The long-haired, FM radio listening, dope smoker image had to be given up when they had to get jobs except in academia or government and it doesn't sell anywhere else. The real political face of the Sixties is the "Get Clean for Gene" variety of political operative that morphed into the McGovernite revolution in the Democrat Party. McGovern may have failed spectacularly in his quest for the Presidency, but his followers in all sorts of ad hoc Democrat groups succeeded spectacularly in taking over the Democrat Party and many of its adjuncts such as the non-profits and labor unions. Their image is smooth, articulate, well dressed, and very smart. You have to look behind the face they keep in a jar by the door to see who they really are.
In Vino Veritas
parks after dark. They bring out suicidal tendancies.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
...who likely thinks that Hillary is too divisive to produce the Democrat win that they so desperately crave.
I really hope that no one here is actually rooting for Obama to win the nomination. I don't buy into that garbage that the fall of the House of Clinton is a good thing. What if the "fall" produces a GOP defeat (which it likely will)? Is that a good thing?
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
I'm not rooting for anyone to win the democratic primary, either way I want Hillary to lose ungracefully. The Clintons thrive on bieng the victums of outside evil forces. Obama doesn't play into it as nearly as much as they do.
If he were to win the primary, it would be a more civil election. I'd much rather the election be won on the issues and which candidate is the right one to lead out country. Rather than months long debate on which side was the most evil. Thats how elections should work in a free society. I feel if thats the case then we shouldn't have any worries about winning. In the free exchange of ideas, the better ones should win.
The truth can only be found by those who seek it.
All of this talk about how Obama is 'post-partisan' or 'above partisanship' is just more proof of the mainstream media's leftwing bias. The guy is either left or far-left on virtually every issue, yet he is going to bring all Americans together in blessed unity?
There is no way that a conservative (Republican or even Democrat) would be given such lofty and absurd praise, because the very fact that they are conservative means that they are divisive and want to win by using 'wedge' politics to 'divide' Americans.
But if its a charismatic liberal, then the fact thaty he's pursue a far-left agenda out of line with a huge segment of the population (and with a majority of the people in many cases) doesn't matter. When a leftwing agenda is pursued, apparently its through unity, not divisive wedge politics.
Any right-leaning person would be insane to vote for this guy, unless of course they think he would go too far and spur on a conservative-GOP comeback.
means about midway between Lenin and Mao.
In Vino Veritas
Astonishing that they're parroting the manufactured line about Obama when everyone really knows that the reason academics are donating to him and were so instrumental at vaulting him to prominence was that Obama reminded them more than anyone else of the '60s.
That sentiment is widespread and pervasive in academia. Which, of course, is why newspapers are denying it.
Obama was the anointed candidate of the aging '60s-era intelligentsia but everyone recognized early on that his campaign and his public persona had to very carefully minimize that Inconvenient Truth. Hence his kind words for Reagan. It's no wonder David Geffen and Jeffrey Katzenberg are so interested in him: his entire campaign is a manufactured story, designed to obfuscate the real reasons he's being supported.