Posted by: Puma1 | September 10, 2008

What Goes Around: Obama Didn’t Mind Using “Phony Outrage” Against Hillary, Did He?

And although I’m not the kind to say

I told you so

If there’s one thing that I’ve found

It’s what goes around comes around

~ as performed by Regina Belle

With the Clintons deposed, it is astonishingly clear that there is now an intelligence vacuum at the top of the Democratic party.

Yesterday while complaining about McCain-Palin, Obama told a cheering crowd “You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig”:

This comes just as voters have spent days watching as Sarah Palin’s acceptance speech joke “What’s the difference between a hockey mom and a pitbull? Lipstick!” enter pop culture and public consciousness. That collective groan you hear is Democrats wondering ‘How could Obama be so stupid,’ although given that the Junior Bush is also an Ivy League grad, it should make sense.

Maybe the groan should be ‘How could we have been so stupid to pick this guy?’

Even if this was just a clumsy statement, and not an outright smear, it’s generally not a good idea to even leave open the possibility that you are calling your opponent’s running mate a pig when public perception is that your campaign is faltering, when your appeal is supposed to be based on moving beyond divisive politics, and when that running mate is a woman and you are trying to win over Hillary Rodham Clinton’s disgruntled constituency.

Whether sinister or not, this a bonehead mistake that has been predictably exploited by the McCain campaign and conservative commentators to make Obama look like a sexist…well, like a sexist pig. McCain wasted no time splicing together an ad essentially calling Obama a misogynist:

Obama, clearly off his game and cognizant of how badly this could play with working women and swing voters, has responded by decrying this dustup as “phony outrage”:

“They seize on an innocent remark, try to take it out of context, throw up an outrageous ad, because they know that it’s catnip for the media.”

And in response, Hillary Democrats everywhere are rolling on the floor laughing.

Is Obama talking about how he ‘seized on’ Bill Clinton’s ‘innocent remark’ asserting that Obama’s ever-fluctuating Iraq war position was a ‘fairy tale’ in order to paint Bill as a racist?

Or how he ‘seized on’ Hillary’s matter-of-fact declaration that without LBJ the Civil Rights Act would never have been passed to paint her as a racist?

Or how he ‘seized on’ Bill’s inelegant but correct comparison of Jesse Jackson’s South Carolina primary win with Obama’s or how he ‘seized on’ Hillary’s mention of RFK as a lesson of unpredictability to insinuate falsely that she called for his assasination?

No, back then, when constantly playing the race card, Obama had no problem with his own “phony outrage” or with taking things out of context in order to destroy two icons of his party.

Voters are waking up to what Hillary Dems have long known: Obama is a major hypocrite…and not nearly as gifted as advertised.

Word on the street is that Obama ran a smarter primary campaign than Hillary. But the sheer ineptitude of campaign and candidate as of late leaves open the possibility that perhaps Obama was not so much smart as Hillary was careless. Obama, enabled by Dean and Axelrod and Brazille, are running what is shaping up to be the worst general election campaign in recent memory — worse, even, than the Mary Beth Cahill led John Kerry debacle of 2004. I know Democrats who still have nightmares about Cahill…they’ll be having them about Axelrod soon.

Maybe the Clintons were mistakenly saving their best efforts for what has become their forte — battling (and usually beating) the GOP. Or maybe Hillaryland, falling into the front runner trap, believed it could never face a real test from within the Democratic Party, and consequently they got too lazy too early. Sure, the old Clinton machine tightening up, smartened up, and began to resemble its old self sometime in March — steamrolling through the final primary sprint. But by then the damage was done.

Whatever happened, the absence of Hillary from the ticket — top or bottom — is a fumble on the part of the DNC and the Obama camp. The conventional wisdom said Obama had to pass over Hillary to avoid power struggles with the Clintons. Hillary and Bill’s speeches at the Democratic Conention made clear that the conventional wisdom was wrong again in what’s shaping up to be a pretty bad election year for conventional wisdom. Obama would have benefited immensely from having these two out on the campaign trail on his behalf day after day.

And you would have never heard of the pitbull with lipstick.

Maybe if Obama had not riled up his fans, the media, and those around him with trumped up charges of racism at the Clintons, then he wouldn’t have been so blinded by ‘phony outrage’ to see how much he needs Bill and Hillary Democrats.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. Sorry I’m a bit late to the party, but I just stumbled across DONE’s website, manifesto and blog.

    I’m a bit confused, though. So you’re against elitists? And Obama is an elitist? Isn’t every politician a disaffectionate elitist? It’s their job. In fact, that’s one of the reasons why they’re so good at their jobs; they truly believe they have the ability (and right) to represent a constituency full of unique individuals. I mean, “HRC” certainly isn’t above that claim.

    So what is the plan with DONE? Are the members going to vote McCain? Even though he disagrees with most everything H. Clinton has been standing for? Even though Obama’s and Clinton’s ideals are, for the most part, indistinguishable? You’re not going to vote for the candidate whose policies best represent your own left-leaning ideals (I know you’re left-leanind because the Manifesto discourages “the Middle”) because he referred to McCain’s economic policies (NOT anything to do with Palin, something awkwardly mis-leading this blog entry as well as the comments) as putting lipstick on a pig? Something that McCain used against Hillary only months earlier?

    I guess I just don’t get the petty differentiations.

    It’s funny; this is exactly what the pundits were all saying: Hillary cannot win, and should concede before her supporters become too attached to her. But in her own vain attempt at a 2012 nomination (that’s, of course, my own uneducated speculation), she pressed on, and created the need for sites like this one, and for movements like “DONE”. It’s quite sad.

    I don’t expect the members to convert to the Obama side as most commentors seem to be in agreement, but he is the much better candidate to represent the ideals you’ve expressed in your manifesto. And it’s counterintuitive to vote against the your own political views for personal reasons, right?

    Additionally, any of you in the Midwest have undoubtedly seen the “Holding my nose and voting McCain” bumper stickers on the cars of disenfranchised republicans. They get it; they’re not going to vote for Obama just because McCain is closer to “the Middle” than they’d like. I just don’t see the logic in this very organized, thoughtful movement you’ve got going on here to not elect the person you most politically identify with.

    Best of luck to you on this site. I’ll be voting Nader this year. But mostly because I’m from New Jersey so my vote doesn’t count. I hope all of you in the swing states think very hard before the election about where your chips should fall. Because it’s just elitist not to.

    -marc-

  2. As a Democrat who is absolutely planning to vote for Obama this fall and who fundamentally abhors John McCain, let me be among the first to say that, if John McCain wins this election due in any part to disaffected Clinton supporters, and the 2012 Democratic nominee is Hillary Clinton, not only will I be voting for John McCain (or whomever the GOP nominee is), I will give them every cent I can afford to give and every second of my time that I can spare. You Clinton supporters who are hoping to throw this election to McCain need to be aware that this kind of game is a two-way street.

    Democrats against Clinton Defectors. We are out there, and come 2012 we will be organized.

  3. I got a new name for the site….. republicans(not dems) with a false sense of righteous indignation

  4. You talk about not speaking to policy… I disagree with both candidates in numerous areas, unfortunately you don’t talk about issues on this site

  5. Obama should step down and let me guess Hillary should take his place(did that to make you mad)? HAHAHAHA you are a nut job. It’s funny you obviously watch the media 24/7 but you don’t know about the new McCain, Obama wants kids to learn about sex ad? And good defense of Palin because she needs it. Until that comment Hillary had half the African-American vote. Obama’s Campaign is nothing like Jackson’s. Obama defended Clinton over and over again. Get one clip of him talking about racism and Clinton……you won’t find it. The other comments I will not address because it was nonsense( like most on this site)

  6. If Oloser can see racism in teh term “fairytale”… everything is fair game.

    The thing about obama is he projects everything he is guilty of on to others.
    It’s his “tell”.

    Anyway, just 54 more days and we won’t have to put up with him and his any longer.
    Did I mention: Good riddance?

  7. You don’t have to give phony rationalizations on why you stole the story. Obama never stole a speech.. .but of course you have to jump on the talking points band wagon. Maybe you can write about how Obama wants to educate babies about sex…. right out of the womb. Or how Gibson was too hard on Palin (because Meet the Press takes it so easy on Obama/Biden). He made his name complaining about racist attacks? That might be a winner for all time dumb comments. Bill Clinton was wrong comparing the campaign to Jackson’s but everyone knows hes not racist. When the media bandwagon hopped on their was a firestorm. And he does talk about issues but its unfortunate you seem not to. Is talking about change or hope and issues mutually exclusive? When then lets stick with change… Republicans to Democrats
    _______________
    I don’t have to give a rationalization at all, because I stole nothing. Obama has been stealing speeches and slogans from the beginning of his campaign. I don’t know what you’re talking about when it comes to Obama, babies, and sex. More loony, crazy nonsense from left-wing hippie kooks.

    I also don’t know where you get this crap about Gibson being too hard on Palin. That’s more nonsense from you, but Gibson was wrong in editing the interview heavily instead of presenting Palin’s quotes in context in full.

    Obama has made his name painting the Clintons as racists, which is vile and wrong. Bill Clinton’s Jesse Jackson comparison was dead on as evidenced by Obama’s current problems with non-black voters. If everyone knows Clinton is not racist, clearly the disgusting Obama campaign didn’t get the memo since they did everything they could to portray Bill and Hillary as racists. It was simply revolting.

    Obama is an empty suit. He can’t talk about issues because he can’t make his mind on any one stance and flip-flops constantly. That’s not the change American needs or wants.

    Obama should step down now.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: