The New Yorker and Barack's TruthSpeak

I don't know where to start.  Words fail me.  I haven't posted lately because there's just so much wrong with Obama's campaign.  His refusal to take public financing and his move to the center, after he said he was more ethical than Hillary because she refused public financing and moved to the center.  And now he's chasing her big donors and her D.C. contacts like a dog drooling after a fat steak.  I'm embarrassed for him - someone needs to be. Oh - wait - was that racist?  Are Barack's feelings hurt?  See, ...it makes my neck clench up just thinking about it. 

I apologize to readers for the delay but I am in the process of moving back to my home state of Oregon and starting a new job, so any extra time or energy I have left is devoted to figuring out the best teething toys for my baby and having long babbling conversations with him.  I find his baby talk more interesting than anything television news has to offer these days.  But this New Yorker business I can't let lie.

Again, where to start.  He can dish it out but can't take it?  People in glass houses....  You reap what you sow?  Barack based his entire campaign on taking cheap shots at Sen. Clinton, slewing character attacks at her right and left, smearing every tiny thing she said to appear racist, making fun of her constantly. The media was on board, with the male cartoonists vilifying Sen. Clinton with crude cartoons that made her look like a scary power monger because she was a woman with the same ambition Barack has.  Barack and the media were feasting on making fun of her, in almost archaic fashion like a fat king and his court gorging on pheasant and drunk on wine. 

Some said Barack couldn't be held responsible for how the media treated Sen. Clinton, but did you ever hear Barack denounce it?

And now the shoe's on the other foot.  A popular media outlet with some liberal tendencies turned its pen on Barack.  And Barack doesn't like it; his campaign called it "tasteless and offensive".  His zealous blogger maniacs who police everything said about their messiah-who-delivered-them-from-the-strong-woman, are hysterical.

A guy in my coffee shop whose pretty savvy on political issues, told me he thought the New Yorker cartoon was a little racist - that he's the "Jackie Robinson of politics" and having to take those hits as the first black in this position.  I told him I was having a hard time working up sympathy after all the hits on Sen. Clinton.  This guy's pretty fair minded, but just looked puzzled and said confidently, "That's different."

That's different.  That's what men always say.  Making fun of women isn't sexist - it's just humor.  Making fun of men - well, that's different. 

Come on, people.  The New Yorker cover isn't nearly as bad as what they threw at Sen. Clinton.  It's satire.  Unlike the crude cartoons distorting Sen. Clinton's physical appearance, this cartoon is smart.  Look at the portrait over the fireplace, the flag in the fire as they stand in the Oval Office. It's hilarious, over the top - that's what good satire is.  Barack takes himself way too seriously if he can't laugh at this.  He walks around in a solumn rectitude of certainty that he is somehow holier than everyone else.  This is dangerous.  One of the first blogs I wrote over a year ago was about how politics is riddled with foolish men like Barack who think they're above everyone else.  That kind of self-denial leads to large falls.  Those kind of men start wars and do other crazy things.  One of the many things I like about Sen. Clinton is her wonderful ability to take a joke, and even offer a few at her own expense.  Women in our culture have had to learn how to do that - to go along, to let it go.  Men like Barack have never had to learn to let it go.

But there are real dangers here.  One of the great harms Barack's campaign has done is to lower our level of public discourse to juvenile pot shots.  I admit to falling to his level in my last post (which I've deleted).  It did take on a snide tone - but I was just mimicking Barack and Michelle.  I couldn't wait to stick it back to them as they'd stuck it good to Sen. Clinton.  And then where are we?  I'm embarrassed I stooped to his level and the level that now permeates the political blogosphere. 

So I want to get back to what really matters: our country has real problems to solve.  People - my people, the lower and lower middle class people - have trouble living their lives with any financial certainty these days. 

Barack's behaviors are dangerous for two reasons. First, instead of talking about how he would solve any real problems, Barack's campaign just keeps whining about how his feelings are hurt.  Even the Obama-loving San Francisco Chronicle did a piece recently on how his campaign, and now McCain's, are taking umbrage at everything ("Both campaigns making a habit of taking offense" 7/24/08).  This is not presidential, and it does a disservice to our country.  It's embarrasing that this is what the Democratic Party has to offer.

Second, there's real danger in the level of truth control that Obama-maniacs and the media have allowed him.  All along Barack just denies and lies about what he does.  He said he didn't take money from oil companies when his campaign records reported contributions from oil companies; he said he didn't take money from pharmaceutical companies when his campaign records reported contributions from CEOs of pharmaceutical companies.  Now he's changed his position on troop withdrawal but calls another press conference to insist he didn't change his position on troop withdrawal.  He vowed to engage in public financing, and now changes his mind.  But -and this is really the Orwellian part - his campaign sends out an email stating that because he has a lot of small money donors, that is really "like public financing anyway."  Really?  Even the Obama-loving New York Times news desk called him on that - pointing out he'd far exceeded Sen. Clinton in big money donors.  Two of Barack's biggest proselytizers, Bob Scheer of the SF Chronicle and EJ Dionne of the Washington Post Writers Group, wrote opinions this month about Barack's move to the center and yet, as the New York Times reports "Obama rejects assertions that he has moved to the center."

This is George Orwell's 1984 Truth Ministry come to life. Barack seems to feel that the truth is whatever he says it is, damn all evidence, records and his own quotes to the contrary. We're allowing this to happen, people.  Anyone who doesn't complain about this is allowing it to happen.  We're at the point now, with something like the New Yorker magazine cover, that we're subjects who hold back our laughter waiting for the king's reaction.  If he laughs, we guffaw heartily.  If he doesn't laugh, we get angry on his behalf and off with the head of the perpetrators.

Several male commenters have written to say that I am irresponsible because by continuing to criticize Barack, I might be helping to elect McCain. To borrow one of Barack's favorite patronizing phrases, let me be perfectly clear.  I did not vote for Barack Obama.  If the party is actually going to officially nominate such a faulty candidate, that is not on my shoulders. If McCain wins the election over Obama, that will sit squarely on the shoulders of those who voted for Barack.  I've been a lifelong democrat but I've crossed party lines on several occasions.  I'm interested in what's best for our country.  I continue to believe that Barack's immaturity and self-righteousness pose real dangers, and nothing about his behavior after Hillary's withdrawal has changed my belief. I'm not yet convinced McCain would be worse, but will explore McCain more in coming blogs. 

A final note to the male readers who send comments about how I'm only unhappy with Obama because I'm angry and emotional about Sen. Clinton's loss.  First, I do appreciate your interest and your attempts to interact, which I believe are genuine.  However, recall that Obama dismissed Sen. Clinton's legitimate claims by calling her emotional.  Okay, so it worked to get him the nomination, but it doesn't work on my blog.  I would be happy to post and respond to comments that offer logical arguments to counter mine.  But I don't want to use my blog space or energy to perpetuate the negative name-calling stuff that permeates most political blogs. I'm making a concerted effort to rise above Barack's whiny-ness and get back to talking about what really matters.  And, by the way, the only people I've heard who are talking about what really matters are Ralph Nader, and Cynthia McKinney of the Green Party.  Oh, and my five month old - I'm sure he's offering thoughts on the energy problems and the banking crisis, but it's coming out like whale sounds now - I can't decipher it yet.

Comments

[Alison]

Your five month old would probably make a better president than Obama. Talk about Manchurain candidate and the Democrat's version of Bush. WIthout a written speech the man can hardly form a sentence. And I just love his jaunt around the world so that he can be a president "of the world". Smells fascist to me. Oh, and gather foreign policy experience while he's at it. His handling of the press is also creepy. I'm talking Scientology level of creepiness. And I want this manufactured man as my president? Please, I'll take McCain over that for 4 years.

[M.R. Field]

Welcome back to the blogsphere, Lisa. I keep cringing every time I hear some news reporter, pundit, or spin master talk about women who don't support Obama's presidential campaign merely as older white women who can't see past Hillary's loss. Apparently women cannot oppose Obama as president based on his lack of qualifications and his lack of comprehension about certain important things, e.g., the U.S. budget. I almost fell over laughing when I heard Obama respond to McCain as he responded to Hillary so frequently, i.e., by saying he was sorry his opponent made some point about his campaign. It's a lawyer's trick. Obama says he's sorry to hear the statement, but he does not deny the truth of the statement. Alas, it worked well in the primary. I hadn't thought to connect the New Yorker cartoon to cartoons of Clinton, but then I hadn't really paid attention to political cartoons during the primaries. I did note, however, how the story around the New Yorker cover, yet again, became about the messenger and not about the candidate or the issues of government.