[Marxism] Fidel Castro: The McCain Tour and the Manifest Destiny of the U.S. Fourth Fleet
lnp3 at panix.com
Wed Jul 2 07:08:26 MDT 2008
Walter Lippmann wrote:
> (Some seem to think that Obama is the main danger and
> endless denunciations of Obama must be prioritized.
> That approach isn't held universally today, however.)
Nobody thinks that Obama is the "main danger", whatever that means.
McCain is clearly worse than Obama, just as George W. Bush was worse
than John Kerry, and so on and so forth. There have been frequent
reminders both during the primary and now after the primary that Obama
is a typical DP candidate for president despite all the rhetoric about
"change". Furthermore, this view is becoming fairly generalized not just
among the unrepentant Marxists.
Memo to Obama: Moving to the Middle is for Losers
Posted June 30, 2008 | 03:14 PM (EST)
Last Friday afternoon, the guests taking part in Sunday's roundtable
discussion on This Week had a pre-show call with George Stephanopoulos.
One of the topics he raised was Obama's perceived move to the center,
and what it means. Thus began my weekend obsession. If you were within
shouting distance of me, odds are we talked about it. I talked about it
over lunch with HuffPost's DC team, over dinner with friends, with the
doorman at the hotel, and the driver on the way to the airport.
As part of this process, I looked at the Obama campaign not through the
prism of my own progressive views and beliefs but through the prism of a
cold-eyed campaign strategist who has no principles except winning. From
that point of view, and taking nothing else into consideration, I can
unequivocally say: the Obama campaign is making a very serious mistake.
Tacking to the center is a losing strategy. And don't let the latest
head-to-head poll numbers lull you the way they lulled Hillary Clinton
Running to the middle in an attempt to attract undecided swing voters
didn't work for Al Gore in 2000. It didn't work for John Kerry in 2004.
And it didn't work when Mark Penn (obsessed with his "microtrends" and
missing the megatrend) convinced Hillary Clinton to do it in 2008.
Fixating on -- and pandering to -- this fickle crowd is all about
messaging tailored to avoid offending rather than to inspire and
galvanize. And isn't galvanizing the electorate to demand fundamental
change the raison d'etre of the Obama campaign in the first place? This
is how David Axelrod put it at the end of February, contrasting the
tired Washington model of "I'll do these things for you" with Obama's
"Let's do these things together":
"This has been the premise of Barack's politics all his life, going
back to his days as a community organizer," Axelrod told me. "He has
really lived and breathed it, which is why it comes across so
authentically. Of course, the time also has to be right for the man and
the moment to come together. And, after all the country has been through
over the last seven years, the times are definitely right for the
message that the only way to get real change is to activate the American
people to demand it."
Watering down that brand is the political equivalent of New Coke. Call
it Obama Zero.
In 2004, the Kerry campaign's obsession with undecided voters -- voters
so easily swayed that 46 percent of them found credible the Swift
Boaters' charges that Kerry might have faked his war wounds to earn a
Purple Heart -- allowed the race to devolve from a referendum on the
future of the country into a petty squabble over whether Kerry had bled
enough to warrant his medals.
Throughout the primary, Obama referred to himself as an "unlikely
candidate." Which he certainly was -- and still is. And one of the
things that turned him from "unlikely" upstart to presidential
frontrunner is his ability to expand the electorate by convincing
unlikely voters -- some of the 83 million eligible voters who didn't
turn out in 2004 -- to engage in the system.
So why start playing to the political fence sitters -- staking out newly
nuanced positions on FISA, gun control laws, expansion of the death
penalty, and NAFTA?
In an interview with Nina Easton in Fortune Magazine, Obama was asked
about having called NAFTA "a big mistake" and "devastating." Obama's
reply: "Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and
Overheated? So when he was campaigning in the Midwest, many parts of
which have been, yes, devastated by economic changes since the passage
of NAFTA, and he pledged to make use of a six-month opt-out clause in
the trade agreement, that was "overheated?" Or was that one "amplified?"
Because if that's the case, it would be helpful going forward if Obama
would let us know which of his powerful rhetoric is "overheated" and/or
"amplified," so voters will know not to get their hopes too high.
More information about the Marxism