• Tips gratefully accepted here. Thanks!:

  • Recent Comments

    Propertius on Stop walking on eggshells
    Propertius on Hooray For Nancy
    Barry Goubler on They Count on Us Not Playing T…
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Omg, Kevin, run!
    Propertius on Omg, Kevin, run!
    Beata on Hooray For Nancy
    William on Hooray For Nancy
    William on They Count on Us Not Playing T…
    djmm on They Count on Us Not Playing T…
    bellecat on Hooray For Nancy
    Beata on Hooray For Nancy
    William on Hooray For Nancy
    Beata on Hooray For Nancy
    bellecat on Hooray For Nancy
    Beata on They Count on Us Not Playing T…
  • Categories


  • Tags

    abortion Add new tag Afghanistan Al Franken Anglachel Atrios bankers Barack Obama Bernie Sanders big pharma Bill Clinton cocktails Conflucians Say Dailykos Democratic Party Democrats Digby DNC Donald Trump Donna Brazile Economy Elizabeth Warren feminism Florida Fox News General Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Goldman Sachs health care Health Care Reform Hillary Clinton Howard Dean John Edwards John McCain Jon Corzine Karl Rove Matt Taibbi Media medicare Michelle Obama Michigan misogyny Mitt Romney Morning Edition Morning News Links Nancy Pelosi New Jersey news NO WE WON'T Obama Obamacare OccupyWallStreet occupy wall street Open thread Paul Krugman Politics Presidential Election 2008 PUMA racism Republicans research Sarah Palin sexism Single Payer snark Social Security Supreme Court Terry Gross Texas Tim Geithner unemployment Wall Street WikiLeaks women
  • Archives

  • History

    April 2010
    S M T W T F S
     123
    45678910
    11121314151617
    18192021222324
    252627282930  
  • RSS Paul Krugman: Conscience of a Liberal

  • The Confluence

    The Confluence

  • RSS Suburban Guerrilla

  • RSS Ian Welsh

    • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
  • Top Posts

Once you learn to fake authenticity, the rest is easy


From the Telegraph article How Barack Obama invented himself containing an interview between Obama biographer David Remnick and Ta-Nehisi Coates:

TC Right. How does that play into his political career? I wonder how, again, to the extent that there was a choice to identify as multiracial, not necessarily black.

DR It is a huge theme in his political career. Every step of the way race plays a gigantic role. Every time he runs for office. When he ran for [Illinois] state senator he committed an act of impiety against the long-standing regulars there by refusing to step back from [incumbent] Alice Palmer, who had a much deeper relationship to the community than he did. When he ran for Congress in 2000 he ran against the former Black Panther Bobby Rush, and somebody extremely popular on the south side; an act of impiety. He lost two to one, and it was an ugly, ugly race, in which Rush and another opponent really were putting it out on the street that this guy is inauthentic – not black enough, was the phrase; that he’s an outsider; he’s not really one of us, he doesn’t have our experience, etc, etc, etc. Which is a complete denial of the black experience in America, which is immensely diverse, whether it is people who are from the Caribbean or from Africa or from… This subject dogs him all the way; it doesn’t begin with the presidential race.

TC Since you mention Bobby Rush: there is a great scene in your book where Rush harps on how Obama walks, his bob, as we tend to call it, and he jokes that Obama did not walk like that before he came to Chicago, and that he acquired this kind of way of walking.

DR Yes. Bobby Rush is not a young man any more; his health is not the best. He is very tall and very skinny, and he is the cock of the walk. Why? Because he is the one guy who beat Obama; and he beat him soundly. So, here he is in his congressional office: it’s very nice that Barack has won finally, and he’s mocking him, and then he gets up and he just sashays across the office. And he said, you know, back then he didn’t walk like that when he ran against me. You know, he’s accusing him, even to this day, of inauthenticity; as if we all don’t learn, as if we are born with walks and all kinds of things.

TC There is also a great scene where – and forgive my language – one of the guys basically says, you mother——, you’ve got to learn how to talk.

DR Exactly. Obama was smart enough to hire some people that knew their way around, as they called them in Chicago, taverns and clubhouses; he didn’t just bring his Harvard friends. And they would yell at him: they said you go into these black churches and you talk like you are teaching law at the University of Chicago. But he hadn’t learnt it yet. You know, it’s like being a musician: you don’t get to be Sonny Rollins by picking up the saxophone five or six times; you do it over and over and over again in your woodshed. And that is what is amazing about Barack Obama, how quickly he got to the level he did as a politician. He had the bug. We think of him in exalted terms, and should in many ways, but he is also a politician who believes.

A politician who believes in what? Getting himself elected?

I remember the first time I saw Obama addressing an African American audience during the primaries. He was talking like he was trying to imitate Dr. Martin Luther King. Then he started channeling Denzel’s portrayal of Malcolm X:
.

.
Obama sometimes “talks the talk” of a progressive Democrat too, but it’s pretty hard to walk the walk when everything about you is as phony as a $3 bill. If you want to know who Obama really is, follow the money. It leads right to Wall Street.

But we already knew that.


95 Responses

  1. Fantastic story! And I have the perfect similar story
    http://edgeoforever.wordpress.com/2010/04/17/al-sharpton-white-house-ally/
    I supposed you have to see these two together to realize the enormity of the hoax

  2. Somehow, this also reminds me of Randy Rhodes. I was still listening to her show – end of 2007 – she kept harping on Oprah – how she was talking “black” when pushing for Obama in the South. Yet she never noticed this about Obama himself.
    And of course, who can forget the coming and going southern accent of John Edwards?
    But then again, to quote Sharpton, quoting Mandela

    Like Nelson Mandela said, you have to have core principles and everything else is a tactic

    • If Obama has a core principle other than himself I haven’t any idea what it could be.

    • Randy Rhodes – grrrrr
      she called Hillary Clinton a wh*re who sold out to the corporations unlike saintly Obama and then some during the primaries and she was able to do so with impunity.

      I was so upset when I heard that I was beside myself. So I begged digby on her blog more than once to speak out against this terrible misogyny but she never said a peep. Same goes for Jeralyn on talkleft who refused to talk about the nasty RR AFAIR. And the people on Air America defended RR big time ( e.g.Sam Seder) …and of course, the Dem Speaker of the House would have never heard anything about this travesty anyway. So don’t bother me, voter!

      I don’t think I will ever forget Randy Rhodes and her nasty Hillary trashing. Never. For me it was a symbol of the 08 primaries.

      btw I have no idea what she is doing these days. Probably swimming together with Ms Walsh in Kool Aid celebrating the One.

  3. Glenzilla:

    The more I think and read about the Obama DOJ’s prosecution of NSA whistleblower Thomas Drake, the more I think this might actually be one of the worst steps the Obama administration has taken yet, if not the single worst step — and that’s obviously saying a lot. During the Bush years, in the wake of the NSA scandal, I used to write post after post about how warped and dangerous it was that the Bush DOJ was protecting the people who criminally spied on Americans (Bush, Cheney Michael Hayden) while simultaneously threatening to prosecute the whistle-blowers who exposed misconduct. But the Bush DOJ never actually followed through on those menacing threats; no NSA whistle-blowers were indicted during Bush’s term (though several were threatened). It took the election of Barack Obama for that to happen, as his handpicked Assistant Attorney General publicly boasted yesterday of the indictment against Drake.

    Obama is more like Bush than Bush himself!

  4. Joan Walsh swoons over Obama and the Remnick book.

    When did Barry become Barack? Maybe most compelling: When did he become the Barack Obama, charismatic, charming, über-calm and confident; first among men; an inevitable future president…

    He learned to drop some of his “twenty-five cent words” and became bilingual, sometimes able to sound like a preacher, or at least a brother, in his black world, and like an impressive Ivy Leaguer in his white world…

    A fellow Chicago organizer, John Owens, noted his rapport with whites early on. “He was concerned about being fair about whites as well as about blacks, whereas the average African-American who grows up in the community, the concern with being fair is usually with your own … He was able to have stronger relationships with whites than the average African-American.”

    Electing Obama became a route by which white Americans could prove their own goodness and black Americans could claim full citizenship. Everyone (except a racist fringe) loved the image of those brown-skinned girls in the White House…

    Remnick also shows, and not without sympathy, the Clinton team’s shock and bitterness that Bill and Hillary Clinton’s long career of work for racial justice meant nothing; they were never given the benefit of the doubt when it came to racially questionable campaign missteps…

    Finishing Remnick’s book as Obama signed healthcare reform into law, I wondered if I’d been too hard on him all year long, and whether the political suppleness Remnick describes is in fact supreme political shrewdness. Despite its flaws, the bill was a huge historic achievement…

    But “The Bridge” makes clear Obama has the smarts to learn from his mistakes and course-correct. I think anyone who bets against this president having two terms to learn the limits of what’s politically possible is betting against history.

    • Joan Walsh has no credibility left.

      • Reading David Remnick’s “The Bridge,” it’s astonishing all over again that we elected as president not just an African-American by the name of Barack Hussein Obama Jr., but a relative political newcomer we knew comparatively little about.

        […]

        (his mentor Jerry Kellman from his early Chicago days tells Remnick, “It was clear to me that he was never very long anywhere and he was different wherever he goes”)

        […]

        One thing is clear: It’s no accident that Obama beguiled the electorate (and maybe himself) by over-promising his ability to change Washington, end partisan gridlock and “part the waters,” so to speak. He’d been practicing similar social jujitsu most of his life.

        Joan thinks those are GOOD things.

      • Joan Walsh apparently has no brain cells left.

        • Not a one.

          Walsh:
          “But “The Bridge” makes clear Obama has the smarts to learn from his mistakes and course-correct.”

          Nothing against correcting a wrong course. But I prefer a Prez who is smart and experienced enough to avoid wrong courses from the v. start. How do you course-correct the dead and injured who died on your order, Mr. Obama?

          Walsh:
          ” I think anyone who bets against this president having two terms to learn the limits of what’s politically possible is betting against history.”

          I bet – because I believed from the start that Obama is a one-termer. Looks like the majority of US folks thinks same (remember the recent LATimes article?).

          I haven’t read Walsh since 2008 …. but it seems she still swims in tons of Kool Aid several times a day 😉

      • I can’t read her anymore. I understand that she is trying to protect the Democratic brand but she is speaking to a rapidly decreasing share of the market.
        People want Hillary. I hear it every single day. The post office clerk who processed Brook’s passport application said the same thing as I made out the check to the State department. “Mmmm, how I wish we had Hillary. Next election it’s Hillary. If I can’t have Hillary, I’ll vote for Ms. Palin.” Women are pissed. I would have tried to talk her out of Palin but it’s going to be very difficult without offering people a real alternative to her.
        But my question about Joan Walsh is why she doesn’t feel that she was too hard on Hillary? Why does Barry get her sympathy, especially when he doesn’t deserve it? Obama asked for this job. He would have killed his own mama to get it and he wasn’t above severely damaging his opponent and his party. But winning was his only goal. Now, she wants to defend him? For what purpose? So he can run in 2012 and take the country down with him?
        Joan is lost

        • Joan Walsh was one of the few who actually stood up for Hillary and the Clintons on cable news. She just desperately tries to overcompensate for that since then by protecting the Democratic brand through her blase “I never thought Obama would be a liberal firebrand, so the fact that he’s even doing X, Y, or Z is good enough” attitude.

        • It’s that San Francisco pious social liberalism. She’s appointed herself protector and promoter of our first black President. She can’t see past his race and consider him first as our 44th President period. It’s patronizing to him and to the nation at large.

    • Joan Walsh is a fool!

    • This occurred as soon as he raised millions in 2007 by selling himself to the oligarchy.

      When did he become the Barack Obama, charismatic, charming, über-calm and confident; first among men; an inevitable future president…

      If he hadn’t sold out, he’d still be a bored senator, or more likely, a failed community organizer in Chicago.

    • LOL! Walsh worries that she’s been “too hard on” Obama!

      OMG, I may never stop laughing.

    • I think anyone who bets against this president having two terms to learn the limits of what’s politically possible is betting against history.

      Spoken like a true blue WH groupie.

      This was more honest:

      SPEARS: Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision he makes and should just support that, you know, and be faithful in what happens.

      CARLSON: Do you trust this president?

      SPEARS: Yes, I do.

      CARLSON: Excellent. Do you think he’s going to win again?

      SPEARS: I don’t know. I don’t know that.

      • Bush got two terms. I don’t feel that I can predict anything now. How will the money and the media swing in 2012?

        • The close races in the last three general elections doesn’t seem like a coincidence somehow. Appears to be a game that the two establishment parties play with the help of the media, like the down to the wire votes in Congress these days.

        • Cynical Pragmatists like Joan Walsh are already on it. ‘History is on the historic one’s side.’ Find 10,000 different ways to say it until 2012.

      • It was. I saw the interview. Then the punditry ridiculed Carlson for taalking to someone like Spears.

        So here we have Walsh.
        And nothing has changed since then … except the name of the Prez.

  5. The author of this new Obama book works himself through the contradictions of Obama’s self-made “biographies,” and towards the end, calls Barak Obama a SHAPE SHIFTER.

    Most of the author’s interviews don’t include that part of his conclusions, but it’s there, in the final chapter.

    A SHAPE SHIFTER. Quite accurate, I thought, in terms of Obots seeing what they wanted to see, in a man who does just the opposite.

    • Just a follow-up: the very goofy Joan Walsh left out the “shape-shifter” part. Not surprising, given that MSNBC pays her big bucks to be a “commenter” on the Obot shows.

      Tad disingenuous for Joan Walsh to selectively choose what’s in that book, eh?

      • “Disingenuous” is a fancy word for “liar”

        • A-yup. I’m into euphemisms. But if Joan Walsh actually READ the damm book, she knows exactly what the author said, and “edited” her review ON PURPOSE.

          I actually read her book review at Salon; she got ripped by the commenters for her selective reporting.

          Deservedly so.

    • He’d make a perfect character on Lost. He’s like the man in black who was able to take different forms and appear as whatever he needed to be to manipulate his victims.

  6. They used every possible concept of behavioral psychology to craft their illusion to suit their ends.

    It’s quite genius actually.

    • 100% agree and it’s really scary to me that it worked. I can’t help wondering if it will keep right on working until the people of the US have absolutely nothing left to hold onto?

      • Behavioral psychology is like a religion at Harvard and I’m certain Obama and those that surrounded him spent many hours of devotion to those theories. The result is obvious.

        • I know Riverdaughter, in particular, and many who visit this wonderful site are not fans of the Tea Party movement. However, if we put aside our distaste for many of the conservative viewpoints that are promoted by many in the movement, we can also see that amongst this group are also moderate dems, liberarians, independents, as well as republicans, who are doing something those who voted for obama never did and still aren’t doing — “thinking for themselves”. Once citizens start thinking for themselves and are no longer buying the snake oil being sold by obama and his inner circle and even question them, that’s the time when ALL citizens have a real chance to take back their power and ultimately their government.

          There are many bloggers who have posted obama’s very condescending statement about the Tea Party movement that should never come out of any president’s mouth (no matter how much they disagree with the movement) that the Tea Party movement “amused” him. How could a president of all the people make such a statement and the media not rake him over the coals for saying such a thing?

          The truth is, the Tea Party movement “frightens” him and his Chicago inner circle who created the idea of obama. How can they maintain the “illusion” of obama created by axelrod from the “real barack obama”? Like it or not, the Tea Party movement has starte removing the mask that covers the real obama and once that happens, even his most ardent supporters will have a hard time making excuses for him and his policies.

          The Tea Party is bigger than its political views. It’s a growing number of Americans getting off their couches and standing together, united in calling out a president who has continually lied to us and protected corporate interests over our’s. They serve a necessary purpose in helping create an atmosphere of informed citizens willing to take action and stop the obama administration from totally destroying everything that made this country great. For that I am grateful.

          • The movement’s creators are also using behavioral psychology.

          • Curious to see whether Ron Paul will remain a bug or become a feature on the scene. Some of the polling is surprising, though not sure how credible.

          • I think Ron Paul is actually not part of the script.

          • I don’t know about that.

          • Tea Party is not where it’s at. They’ve got a right to protest without being assumed to be a raycist mob for it, and I know there are some people genuinely frustrated at Washington’s tonedeafness who are sympathetic to the Tea Party and see them at least protesting and “getting through.” But, the Tea Party is not being elevated without the corporate media’s consent. And, the Tea Party is not educating people. It’s spreading misinformation and disinformation and it’s part of the rigged system keeping the grassroots divided, pitting middle class against working class, instead of allowing them to join together to push back on corporate welfare. (“Look it’s a Teabagger! ” “I know you’re a socialist but what am I.”)

          • When and if the Tea Party makes corporate welfare their main issue and rallying cry, I might pay attention to them. I doubt their organizers would permit that.

          • I’ve been reading this blog for…well ever since I heard of it since the primaries. I recognize so many names from NQ where I usually post. The comments about the Tea Parties certainly shows how we, as Hillary supporters, are so divided.

            I agree with Kathleen Wynn. I have read a lot of her posts at other sites who have been pro-Hillary from the beginning. Perhaps Tea Party apparatus has been funded by big money. Certainly Dick Army and other Republicans have co-opted some of the events.

            This does not mean that most of those who go to the Tea Parties have been duped by the conservative attempt to take it over. More and more people – of all political persuasion – are attending. To dismiss what Kathleen tried to tell you the way you did, well it was truly dismissive, and very much reminiscent of what happened in the primaries 08.

            And lest you think me one of those just “kiting in here,” please know that I’ve worked for 30+ years for women’s rights as a leader and an officer in women’s rights organizations, and a former Democrat who worked on many, many campaigns.

            The disdain for the ordinary Tea Party attenders by some here is quite Obama-like. And to think I was really glad to see so many old posters from NQ here. What was I thinking?

          • We’re just a bunch of independent thinkers who don’t play well with others.

            Sorry.

          • The original peanut gallery.

          • Based on everything I’ve ever heard from a TP, we have nothing in common. So when we say sorry, not interested, we mean it.

          • Senneth, I don’t know if it makes any difference, but the issue of how to disagree with the TPers without attacking anyone for their right to dissent has been an on-going conversation here. I and other regulars have repeatedly pointed out that there is genuine populist frustration at Washington coming the grassroots for the GOP to exploit in the first place–and that there are some people who basically think “a pox on both their (D and R) houses” and are sympathetic to the TP for being a message that is at least “getting through,” no matter how stupid or gullible the left may assume those people are.

            All that said, though, at the organizational level, and at the level of disseminating ideology, the TP is NOT the place for those of us here who are looking for representation from an FDR liberalism standpoint. Speaking for myself, I do not want to be party to spreading Tea Party memes, which are anathema to me. Obama is a corporatist, not a socialist. This blog is a liberal blog, and that’s why I come here. The tea partiers deserve to be treated no better than we would treat Obamagandizing for America, Moveon, etc. Furthermore, the TP is part of the rigged game, so using them as a protest is not an effective way to send the kind of message that I am interested in sending. The Tea Party’s noise is NOT “getting through” without Washington and the media’s corporate masters wanting it to get through–they want that division of people calling each other socialist and teabagger, they don’t want the grassroots looking past that kind of noise and rhetoric to coalesce populist frustration.

            As for the way PUMA was treated, that was a case of being smeared from the moment it existed and from there easily co-opted and overrun by people who didn’t have anything to do with being a disaffected Democrat–BUT when it was first uttered “party unity my ass” was exactly about being a disaffected Democrat. The Tea Party may or may not have been co-opted by deep pockets at an early stage, but the difference is we never had anything in common ideologically with the Tea Party to begin with. It’s the TP’s erroneous ideas we challenge, not their right to dissent.

          • Just because I don’t support Obama doesn’t mean I have to jump on the other bandwagon.

            I might be allowed to attend a tea party, I might even be welcomed there, but it’s not a liberal organization and the vast majority of the attendees (and all of the organizers) have a very different ideology than mine.

        • This is a young movement and you are expecting a lot!

          The Civil Rights Movement had its issues too. One of them being when the AA community began to tire of MLK’s Ghandi approach to achieving equality and were beginning to cross-over to Malcolm X’s approach of “by any means necessary”.

          A movement cannot take on every issue and expect to succeed. It first must stick to its core issues and mission before it branches out to become every thing to every one.

          • This is not a true movement.

          • We’re all powerless. Kneel before Zod!

          • The Tea Party “movement” is every bit as scripted as the rise of Obama. The folks who cry “socialist” at every new instance of Obama’s corporate cronyism are being manipulated just as surely as the kool-aid addicts for whom Obama’s neoconservative programs are “eleven-dimensional chess.” And that “socialist” label tells us exactly where the manipulation is coming from–the hard right for whom the Soviet Union’s collapse is irrelevant and whose greatest fear is still the citizen who wants a fair share of the economic and social pie, aka the commie-commie under the bed. Neither the Tea Party and the Obama faithful represent real democracy or economic justice. In fact, both are dangers to the process.

          • I don’t know how one can equate the actions and intent of MLK’s movement with Tea Party.

          • On what basis do you not consider it a movement? Is it because it has a conservative base that bothers you? Are only liberals who protest are legitimate? I’ve marched with the anti-war groups in D.C. and NYC. I’ve worked for the last 7 years to try to get an election reform movement off the ground. In all of these events, there was someone like you criticizing our efforts for one reason or another.

            What kind of movement would you approve of? Have you attended any of the rallys and spoken to the people who attended them? I have because I refuse to let other’s tell me what this movement is about. I wanted to find out for myself.

            I find it hard to take anyone seriously who criticizes the work of others but who has not taken alternative actions themselves and experienced what it takes to get people motivated and to work together on any level. It’s easy to post on websites your disapproval of the Tea Party movement and the people who are part of it. So, when will you be organizing an alternative movement to offset all the bad things these people are doing and show us the way?

            Ideology is dividing this country and making it impossible for groups with different political points of view to acknowledge and respect our differences and to seek common ground. It’s much easier to find fault. I refuse to be a part of those who choose to attack a cause they clearly know nothing about in real life, and make their judgments based on theory.

            That’s exactly the same mindset we dealt with during the primary when those of who chose to support Hillary over obama. We were met with the same closed minded response.

          • All you have to do with the tea party organizers is to follow their money to figure out who is in charge. They may have got quite a bit of just plain folk to join in, but it’s as orchestrated as the Obama movement was with its money also.

          • Well, Kathleen, it may be that we’re equating the Tea Party “movement” with the Obama “movement” because they both show signs of the same marketing strategy.

            Look at your posts here. You kite into a site that you know has differences with your group, proseletyze, attempt to recruit, then turn accusatory and hostile when you get no takers. Dozens of Obots before you have done exactly the same thing. Why should you be credible as the representative of a genuine movement when they’re not?

            If I were you, I’d fire my marketers and get someone who could develop a more convincing strategy.

          • The Tea Party has aligned itself with slimebuckets like Dick Armey and Betsey McCaughey. That’s not theory, that’s fact.

          • Could someone let my comment out? It went into moderation. Thanks.

          • Ffor the record, I don’t need to explore a group physically to know what it’s creators are trying to achieve.

          • We saw voting irregularities in the 08 primaries. Kathleen has fought hard for fair election reform. She’s not a stranger kiting in to TC. She’s been here before.

          • I never said she was a troll.

          • I agree SoD. Just acknowledging the work Kathleen has done on election reform ever since the Bush count in Ohio 04. She fought alongside Stephanie Tubbs Jones.

    • To paraphrase Black Agenda Report:

      He ain’t Moses, and he ain’t Joshua.

      He’s Pharoah.

    • I agree, but I think on another level, the execution was even simpler: if a barrier was going to be broken, it wasn’t going to be ladies first.

      Harry Reid and the Dem insiders and Wall street went to Obama because they needed a corporate stooge who could compete with Hillary’s historic candidacy– with Obama’s historicalness doubling up as the perfect distraction from the corporate agenda. (Everytime the buzzword historic comes up we’re supposed to forget the specific policy objective at hand.)

      Actually the way things stand with gender in American politics in 2008-2012, being the first woman president would have stood in the way of any corporate agenda–by putting it under a microscope. The Dems and Wall Street didn’t want that. Not only would the Clintons have been too powerful within the party with their legacy, but the scrutiny on her from both left and right would have served as some kind of accountability. Can’t have that.

    • And don’t forget the important Orwellian element of scrubbing his past and totally controlling what anyone who knew him was allowed to say. This was done better than it had been done for W before.(just think of the colossal effort of disappearing every Bush-Abramoff photo)

  7. Behavioral psychology seems to be working much better for him among the political class than among ordinary Americans. I take some comfort that fewer people seem fooled now.

    A tale of two Obamas: Up in D.C., down in U.S.

    The cover of The Atlantic this month shows a shirt-sleeved President Barack Obama and the headline, “WHY HE’S RIGHT.” It reflects the Washington conventional wisdom that Obama is on a roll, bolstered by his long-delayed victory on health reform.

    Someone should tell the rest of the country.

    While Washington talks about Obama’s new mojo, polls show voters outside the Beltway are sulking — soured on the president, his party and his program. The Gallup Poll has Obama’s approval rating at an ominous 49 percent, after hitting a record low of 47 percent last weekend. A new poll in Pennsylvania, a bellwether industrial state, shows his numbers sinking, as did recent polls in Ohio and Florida.

    So there are two Obamas: Rising in D.C., struggling in the U.S.

    • The Obama marketing machine is using the strategy wherein if you say something often enough, people believe it’s true. Sadly the strategy often works. Let’s hope it continues to fail in Obama’s case.

    • Sadly, it may not matter what real America thinks. Executive power has only increased under Obama. He can pretty much get away with anything, and we have no way of knowing that our votes will be counted.

    • It may be a hard sell since it’s the truth. It’s been a long while since a politician tried to sell the truth to the public. 😉

      • Grayson got close when he called the GOP HCR plan “Die quickly.” He just left out the part that that’s the plan the Obama party was passing.

        • He should have said Our plan is “Die Quickly”, then it would have been true.

          • Profits before people is what the plan is. The GOP won’t say that truth, though. They’re too busy pretending the middle class are being stretched thin to help the poor–rather than who they really are being stretched thin to help, i.e. the bonus class.

          • Ain’t it the truth, on all sides.

    • It’s like that scene out of Spartacus. Suddenly everyone wants to stand up to Rome.

  8. Rush and another opponent really were putting it out on the street that this guy is inauthentic – not black enough, was the phrase; that he’s an outsider; he’s not really one of us, he doesn’t have our experience, etc, etc, etc. Which is a complete denial of the black experience in America, which is immensely diverse, whether it is people who are from the Caribbean or from Africa or from…

    I really like the way Remnick, a white, bourgeois Ivy League alum, feels that he knows more than Bobby Rush about what it’s like to be a African-American living in Chicago’s South Side.

    Obama’s appeal in Chicago was always to white liberals in Hyde Park and the North Shore. Supporting him was their idea of “outreach” to the African-American community.

    The reason Rush attacked him on those grounds was because it was effective. Seriously, can anyone imagine someone on the South Side seeing Obama for the first time and not sizing him up as an Ivy League Oreo?

  9. Obama definitely sees everything in terms of money and hustling, shucking and jiving, and that’s why he’s an ace an manipulating.

  10. “as if we are born with walks and all kinds of things.”

    good biographer for Obama. Nice, empty mind.

  11. He is going to take social security and put it in the stock market… that will be the Wall st. biggest payoff!

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: