I think Obama is jealous
***Welcome Cornerites! Please take a look around. I hope you will consider checking back regularly***
How else can you explain his ham handed responses lately. A few days ago the plan was to ignore Palin, but now Obama seems intent on going after her in less than helpful ways. Take this one:
Well, how about Gov. Palin? She’s you know, an up and comer from Alaska. She - they’re starting to run an ad now saying she opposed the bridge to nowhere. Well now, let’s get the facts clear here. When she was mayor, she hired a Washington lobbyist to get earmarks - pork barrel spending - all the things that John McCain says is bad, she lobbied to get! And got a whole lot of it. When it came to the bridge to nowhere, she was for it until everybody started raising a fuss about it and she started running for governor and then suddenly she was against it!
You remember that? For it before you were against it? I mean you can’t just make stuff up. You can’t just recreate yourself. You can’t just reinvent yourself. The American people aren’t stupid.
Let us count the ways this is not smart politics:
- Why is Obama going after Palin? He only increases her stature, wastes time that could be spent attacking McCain, and brings up issues that don’t help him.
- Once again, it is generally thought to be good when you change your mind because of changed circumstances or in the face of clear public support. As she began to see the connection between earmarks and the corruption in her state Palin realized she was wrong, changed her mind, and proved her sincerity by taking action once elected to statewide office. Obama? Not so much.
- Is Obama taking a pot shot at John Kerry with that “For it before you were against it?” bit? Ouch. I though Democrats wanted to nuance and all that?
Let’s talk about that last bit: “You can’t just reinvent yourself. The American people aren’t stupid.” If that is true then Obama is in trouble. Let me point out just a few people who have found Obama to be a case study in reinventing himself:
The New York Post pointed out in June, after he changed his mind on public financing, that Obama had a history of this sort of thing:
This isn’t the first time Obama has, um, “changed” political lanes:
* He ripped Hillary Clinton for months for voting to list Iran’s Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. Days after Clinton conceded, Obama flipped and said he supported the definition.
* Obama repeatedly vowed to meet with various heads of terror states - most notably Ahmadinejad of Iran - “without preconditions.” Then, with the nomination in sight, he zigzagged: “There’s no reason why we would necessarily meet with Ahmadinejad. He’s not the most powerful person in Iran.”
* In October, he supported NAFTA expansion. In March, campaigning in the Ohio primary, he called for a “reopening” of the trade pact’s terms. This week, he called his own primary rhetoric “overheated” and said NAFTA has had a positive effect on the US economy.
* Yesterday, after signaling opposition to nuclear power, he told Democratic governors he’s open to expanding it.
In July, Jeff Emanuel tried to count all the changes:
The transition from primary to general election campaign mode has seen Barack Obama (D-IL) perform whiplash-inducing 180°s on Iraq, on abortion, on the DC gun ban, on FISA and telecom immunity, on welfare reform, on the death penalty for child rapists, on debating John McCain “anywhere, any time,” on the financing of his campaign, and on too many other issues to recount here (not to mention on Jim Johnson, on Jeremiah Wright, on Wes Clark, on Austan Goolsbee, on Samantha Power, on Tony Rezko, and on Scarlett Johansson, as well as on too many other people to recount).
Heck, Jim Geraghty, who noted this weekend that Obama has changed his mind on the Bush tax cuts, has a catchy phrase for just this sort of thing:
All statements by Barack Obama come with an expiration date. All of them.
For earlier chapters in this endless series, look here, here, here, here, here, here and here.
Sure, the biggest reinvention started just after the primary, but it is being completed even as we watch. And that is the change from Obama the different politician, as post-partisan, post-racial, etc. into Obama the traditional politician. The New York Times was disappointed when it started:
We are not shocked when a candidate moves to the center for the general election. But Mr. Obama’s shifts are striking because he was the candidate who proposed to change the face of politics, the man of passionate convictions who did not play old political games.
Much of the early excitment surrounding Obama’s campaign was built on this, in my opinion naive, belief in Obama’s ability to get beyond partisan bickering and offer something different. How far away that seems now.
This is, I hope, the Obama Con being peeled away and shown for what it is. When Obama was in Illinois he was a rather predictable liberal with an fresh face, a charming personality, and exciting rhetoric. But when he got to the US Senate his staff began to work on a plan - yes, they literally had one - to keep his favorables high by avoiding controversy and playing the moderate and unifying politician. In the Democratic primary it was easier to balance his liberalism with his Hope and Change rhetoric, but this was bound to be an issue come the general election. Hence, his lurching centrist rhetoric and changed positions.
But by the time of the convetion the question, according to the chattering classes, wasn’t whether Obama was liberal enough but whether he would “fight back” so out comes a hard edged partisan acceptance speech. Then when McCain-Palin attempt to steal his change mantra out from him Obama whines and complains. But he is stuck between playing the crusading liberal that many Dems want and the Hope and Change unifier that appeals to the non-alligned and non-political.
So ironically, Obama’s problems comes down to his own reinvention. In fact, you could argue that Obama has been reinventing himself his whole life as he sought to find an identity that fit and in changing his rhetoric as he moved up the political ladder.
One thing is crystal clear. Obama shouldn’t be lecturing anyone about reinvention. And if Americans are as smart as Obama says they are they will see right through his insulting language and false accusations.
But, I really think Obama is jealous that Palin has stolen his thunder. She has taken the media limelight and I think that really gets under his skin. And that is why he has chosen to go after her. It sure doesn’t make any political sense.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=ae170322-478f-4ad3-9572-3186a01f16b7)
The Rise of Barack Obama
Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance
The Essential Barack Obama: The Grammy Award-Winning Recordings
17 comments
“Let me make this clear. As I’ve always said, I always believed this - until I believed that.” — Sen Obama’s creed
American people are not stupid enough to not see through Palin’s pawltry attempts to remake herself. But on the other hand, me, I am divine and people will beleive anything I say, so when I completely repaint myself as a moderate, almost center right person, who will reach across the aisle, like the millions of times I have in the past, and get reform done, as I have trillions of times in the past, American’s will beleive every last word.
Palin was a great pick for more than one reason. Obama’s enormous ego is fueled by delusions of accomplishment, so he is bound to be insecure and, therefore, hypersensitive. An unexpected young opponent brimming with confidence and having real accomplishments to her credit (at least compared with his resume) is rattling him to his core.
The problem that Obama doesn’t realize with Gov. Palin changing her mind when people made a fuss - is that’s WHAT public servants ARE SUPPOSED to do …
He is going head to head against her - instead of McCain b’c she’s already won and he’s in the re-election mode for when she’s running for pres. Ya - I know that’s messed up thinking - but I don’t think that Obama can really TOUCH McCain …
Well I know it’s a stupid theory! :)
Good post, Kevin. I think Obama is disgruntled that Palin has replaced him as the fresh-faced young outsider du jour. I was reminded of this quote from Bill Clinton:
“In just a few days, I will be 60 years old. I hate it, but it’s
true…For most of my working life, I was the youngest person doing what I was doing. Then one day I woke up and I was the oldest person in every room.”
True, Bevy. He’s trying to use the Kerry-mocking flip-flop charge against her, but it’s not a good parallel. As you point out, we want our public servants to be open to changing their minds as circumstances change. Kerry’s situation was different from Palin switching on the bridge, or Biden switching on Iraq, or other switches they and Obama and McCain have made to positions which are now popular with their followers - the difference being that due to his choice of words Kerry was seen, correctly or not, as trying to simultaneously appeal to both sides on the question of funding the troops.
If Palin went before an Alaska audience and proudly claimed, “I was for the bridge before I was against it,” as if both porkbarrel Alaskans and frugal taxpayers should both find something to like in the statement, she’d be slammed with the same force Kerry was. But it’s not likely that she or anyone else will repeat that mistake.
Obama’s problem is that gasbag Biden is an ineffective attack dog. No one’s paying attention to him. Therefore Obama has to speak out and try and slow down the Palin Express. He’s got to do it, but each attack against an opponent’s VP takes away yet more of his mojo.
Obama and Biden voted to retain “the Bridge to Nowhere”.
Is it just that Palin was against it before Obama (or is he against it now) ?
She’s done more than stolen his thunder. As Bill Whittle puts it,
Sarah Palin has done more than unify and electrify the base. She’s done something I would not have thought possible, were it not happening in front of my nose: Sarah Palin has stolen Barack Obama’s glamour. She’s stolen his excitement, robbed his electricity, burgled his charisma, purloined his star power, and taken his Hope and Change mantra, woven it into a cold-weather fashion accessory, and wrapped it around her neck.
Just a suggestion from a fellow traveler, your second point is the main point.
That is, the Obama charge that she’s making way too much of her role in killing the famous bridge, and even fundamentally lying about her attitude: it isn’t fair or true, although the reasons are slightly subtle.
However they are also key, and – once you allow yourself to perceive the progressions of events and thinking – they paint a picture of a determined politician early in her career balancing a go-get-‘em attitude with what seems to be an automatic ability to discern reality. (Like, what can be done and what should be done, in some as-yet unproven mix.)
Anyway to me that’s the main point that must be got across, to any convincible person on the left or semi-left. There are approximately 80 specimens in the country.
I’ve lived among the left, as who hasn’t but I really have, I’m like Diane Fossey when it comes to that, and I watch their patterns on a daily basis. As long as some idea comports to their preferred comfy-zone, they will:
• Make no effort to check out the possible problems with an idea, especially this kind of idea, their main category, moral accusations that allow them to continue ignoring the substance on the other side.
• Not care about your other points. It won’t bother them that Obama has changed just as radically as they’re accusing Palin of doing. They’ll find ways to disagree and they just won’t care.
Good post. The truly funny thing here is that Obama and Biden have absolutely no cover on the “Bridge to Nowhere” issue. They, of course, both voted for it, without ever even contemplating a vote against it.
Observe the difference between a phoney and a genuine person.
McCain’s selection of Gov. Palin continues to pay dividends. No one pays attention to Biden. Obama has to spend time attacking the number two slot on the opposing ticket. The more he and his surrogates attack her, the more they energize the sleeping GOP base, and alienate centrists.
Even a blind squirrel could see what’s happening … but the Democrats cannot seem to stop themselves.
The problem, Tryptic, is that if what you imply will be the election outcome actually occurs, the bitter left minority will become even more entrenched in their views of the American people: racist, stupid, greedy, etc.
I mean it’s not just their problem. An embittered dishonest rage-filled opposition of any significant size is like quicksand for the civilization.
Interesting how obsessed Obama and his robots are with Palin. At my job, the libs absolutely convulse over her. They must be afraid. Palin was a terrific pick.
Silly Liberals: Don’t Fear The Palin.
Embrace your inner-Sarah.
“All statements by Barack Obama come with an expiration date. All of them.”
Including, it seems, what his actual name is.
Over at Commentary Magazine’s Contentions blog a commenter to one of the posts took on the issue of why Barack Obama continues to trade punches with Sarah Palin even though his real opponent is John McCain.
I’m betting the writer is a graduate of a top notch college which has a Womyn’s Studies Department. Alternatively, this is such a pitch perfect example of it’s genre that the writer may even be Camille Paglia posting under a pseudonym.
“Joe NS Says: September 6th, 2008 at 2:50 PM
The Democratic campaign is not in a meltdown. The proper image, I believe, is that of a long metal chain the links of which are one by one sliding off the edge of a bench. One can see what is happening, very slowly at first and then accelerating, with horror or glee depending on party affiliation; but it’s very definitely underway.
It is nearly impossible to credit it, but the Palin pick has caught the Democrats so flat-footed that they have clearly decided the only counterpunch they have is to argue that Sarah Palin cannot be a mother and a vice-president at the same time. That is a flat-out incredible position for a Democrat to take. It is unvarnished surrealism. And I fear it might even work. The truth, however, is that they really have no other option at this point. Largely because of the psychology of BO himself, I believe.
In any sensible assessment of his current predicament, Obama MUST IGNORE Sarah Palin. To have the Democratic presidential nominee fencing on almost a daily basis with the Republicans nominee for vice-president is only a little short of insane. Palin was wrong on one matter: the longer the jousting between them continues, the more voters will notice that the proper level of comparison of Obama and Palin is not between Obama as community organizer and Palin as mayor, but between Obama as community organizer and Palin as a member of the Wasilla, Alaska, PTA. Obama should put Sarah Palin out of his head. So why can’t he?
It’s simple: She’s sexier than he is.
One of the things that has always seemed to me creepiest about the 2008 presidential campaign has been its erotic - I would even say homoerotic - atmospherics. Sheer celebrity, of course, tends to push things that way, to be sure; but with Obama something else has been going on, something that is often referred to as “narcissism” or “self-absorption” or, more honestly, as “seductiveness.” Though others may take offense, I think it was always more the self-fascination one sees in a young girl posing in front of a mirror. Edwards displayed the syndrome as well, but once he left the race, Obama had the enchantress slot all to himself. McCain? Hillary?? I don’t think so.
Now here is Sarah Palin, who directly threatens the male narcissist’s amour propre because she seems to be reorienting the eroticism in the campaign toward its “traditional” locus in ordinay life: toward the female. Sarah Palin is amazingly erotic. But even more amazing: It’s perhaps the least important thing about her? Like a belle who meets an unforeseen competitor for the title of most alluring, Obama has reacted badly and, let’s be honest, a little bit cattily.
In sum, hell hath no fury . . . .”
Leave a Comment