You are currently browsing the daily archive for May 1, 2010.

Every once in a while a good writer takes a jab at exposing the whole truth about the  Jr.jr  fake-out.

I have been doing it for 2 years now – and always welcome lucid perspective – no matter how late they were acquired.

Last year Chris Hedges wrote about Brand Obama

Barack Obama is a brand. And the Obama brand is designed to make us feel good about our government while corporate overlords loot the Treasury, our elected officials continue to have their palms greased by armies of corporate lobbyists, our corporate media diverts us with gossip and trivia and our imperial wars expand in the Middle East. Brand Obama is about being happy consumers. We are entertained. We feel hopeful. We like our president. We believe he is like us. But like all branded products spun out from the manipulative world of corporate advertising, we are being duped into doing and supporting a lot of things that are not in our interest.

This year, it’s Naomi Klein who takes on the idea

In the new introduction to No Logo, Klein denounces Obama as little more than a neocon who has wrapped himself in the branding of truly transformative political movements. Shamelessly helping itself to the iconography of Che Guevara, the rhetorical cadences of Martin Luther King, and the “Yes We Can” slogan of Latin American migrant workers, the Obama brand is just as hollow and inauthentic, as far as Klein is concerned, as the corporate brands she X-rayed a decade before. Whenever possible, she alleges, Obama “favors the grand symbolic gesture over deep structural change.” He was happy to play the role of the “anti-war, anti–Wall Street party crasher” when running for the Democratic nomination, but promptly cut bipartisan deals “with crazed Republicans once in the White House.”

And this reprisal comes complete with B0botland reactions

Naomi Klein denounces Obama as neocon wrapped in branding of transformative politics

.and I have to say that for all the protests in the thread, it has a high number of recommendations.

And I like reading those because there’s always one entry that stands out – such as this excellent list

38. Obama’s DOJ’s protection of criminals and prosecution of whistleblowers, his betrayal of gays

Edited on Sat May-01-10 02:03 PM by katandmoon
  • On his foot-dragging on not just ending DADT and DOMA but the appearance of his complete unwillingness to end them,
  • Obama’s continuation of the previous criminal administration’s mindless, ineffective “war on terror,”” along with the seizure of ever more presidential power to justify the treatment of so-called prisoners of war,”
  • Obama’s health care reform that forces people to buy overpriced, inadequate health insurance from corporations dedicated to maximizing profits at the expense of sick, desperate people (a system Obama lied during the presidential campaign about wanting to change),
  • Obama’s disdain for public schools and public school teachers,
  • Obama’s continuation of Bush’s repellent Office of Faith Based Initiatives and continuation of funding for ineffective abstinence “education” despite Congress’s removal of it,
  • Obama’s coziness with rightwing, anti-gay, anti-woman evangelists,
  • Obama’s ever-readiness to belittle and disdain the progressives and liberals who got the vote out for him and contributed so many hours and dollars to his campaign (only to learn that corporations and Wall Street made up the bulk of Obama’s campaign contributions),
  • Obama’s willingness to continue to despoil the environment through offshore drilling after campaigning against it…etc., etc., etc.

But, speaking of branding and brand selling, seems to me that Obama can only sell himself and not his political party. We all remember how much his stumping for candidates helped last year – Corzine, Coakley certainly remember. But now he is besting himself by keeping up with his “outsider” posturing – funny for a POTUS, huh? Of course, the unintended consequence is maligning Congress – all of it.

Which brings up this hillarious headline

Pelosi to W.H.: Back off the Washington bashing

President Barack Obama’s Washington-bashing could boomerang on his own party in Congress if he’s not careful, House Democratic leaders warned White House senior adviser David Axelrod in a closed-door meeting Thursday.

But Axelrod gave no indication that he plans to alter the president’s course, sources told POLITICO. White House aides did not reply to requests for comment.

It seems handlers and congress are battling over sagging polls numbers and pointing fingers

Axelrod told lawmakers that he wasn’t worried about the president’s poll numbers and that he would sacrifice five points in Obama’s approval rating if he thought it would help Democratic congressional candidates – which, of course, it wouldn’t – according to several sources.

In other words, he’ll continue to try to play the good cop to the Congress bad cop, elections be damned.

After all, he is Mr Postpartisan, above it all. Let voters figure out for themselves why voting for the “D”s would be any better than voting for the “R”s. He is not taking sides, as his polling numbers are non-negotiable.

So, Nancy and the rest, you’ve got him now!

I wasn’t sure if I wanted to comment on this story when I read it this morning.

I know I had a good chuckle thinking that karma was a bitch at the memory of M0 chastising Hillary for Bill’s infidelity

Beyond that, it’s none of my business what they do in private.

But if the Enquirer got it right again, I will compare the media coverage now and in the 90s.

And whether this proves to be true or not, I shall enjoy the B0bots  panic

New Anti Obama Rumor. He is Having An Affair & There Is A Video To Prove It

The OP poster is attacked and she has to defend her loyalty.

wow, +infinity for the solid instincts

That is exactly whats going on here with this concern troll.
im a Democrat and you can leave if your not
romantico (1000+ posts)
20. Troll? Um, Hey Moron, I’ve been here since Dec 2000!
I am NOT defending the NE!!!! I am posting a story that is out there. If I did not post it someone else would. DO NOT ACCUSE ME of starting a rumor(Unless I misread your post) How is this any different than someone posting what Rush said or Glen Beck said? JESUS CHRISTS! Some of the idiots here need to think before they post!

Larry Sinclair is brought up

11. Yeah, it’s kinda funny though

Remember when that attention seeking douchebag Larry Sinclair came up with some story about how he and Obama were having a gay-sex-and-cocaine-fueled affair? And how even though he couldn’t back up any of his claims, and failed any and every polygraph test he was put to, the Republicans thought he was totally legit?

Well now apparently they can’t make up their minds because according to Larry Sinclair, Obama’s gay. But they want to believe this new ‘story’ about him cheating with a woman. So apparently they can’t even settle on his sexuality. :rofl:

and a lot of nervous laughter. And a healthy dose of CDS from a Deaniac

After what happened to Bill Clinton there will never be another Democratic President STUPID enough

cheat…and Obama is NOT stupid.

Always good to remember who these people are – because there have been a few instances lately I almost felt sorry for them.

And while I don’t really want to know anything about Obama’s personal life, when I see some of those posts – and remember M), I almost want this to be true.


« 2006.01.10


2006.02.10 »


Yesterday, Firedoglake finally caught up with us, pronoincing – 2 years too late that

.It’s a nicely argued and written piece

Shortly after Obama took office, the White House tried to cut Social Security benefits, but they had to back off, fearful that they would lose the support of liberal interest groups who joined together en masse behind the scenes to oppose it. The administration subsequently herded them all into a room, threatened their funding, and captivated them in an effort to pass a health care bill written by the Heritage Foundation and the insurance industry. And the progressive groups went along with it, proving that there is absolutely no limit to what they’ll accept.

promising new lows to come

Of course, the White House is going to go after Social Security again. It’s the pot of gold at the end of Wall Street’s rainbow, and they desperately want that injection of cash which could keep their giant ponzi scheme from exploding. . . for a little while.

Lucky for them, Obama has successfully dismantled the opposition that kept George Bush from privatizing Social Security at Wall Street’s behest only a few years ago. Did anybody fail to get that message when majority whip Dick Durbin yesterday told “bleeding heart liberals” that they need to be willing to accept cuts to Social Security and Medicare benefits for the economic well-being of the nation?

It’s a quite comprehensive list of trespasses with the one glaring omission I came to expect from ex-B0bots – even the more lucid ones: no mention is made of the Jane Crow EO or many other slights to women. Women are written off as Democratic base, we only parade them when we want to “newspeak” about how happy they should be about all this. But who knows? In a year or two, Firedoglake and Greenwald will catch on to this too.

And on this note, I really wish Krugman would  change the name of his blog. The Conscience of a liberal is about as fitting for what he is writing lately as make-up for a leper. Today’s little reductio ad absurdum

The Oil Spill Is Obama’s Fault

fails to impress because of its intent. Sure it’s ridiculous to say Obama caused the explosion and Limbaugh et al were predictable in that sense.

But when Obama just announced a coastal drilling policy, then took 10 days to respond to the disaster and when he did, he basically assured the oil industry everything will stay the same, is “Leave Obama Alone” the thing a conscience of a liberal should worry about?

In B0botland cheerleaders bring this up

but there are a few lucid comments

24. What is responsible is a policy of offshore drilling – with the drilling you get the spilling

One spill a year I hear in a good time.

There will be more of these as long as offshore drilling remains the policy.
I believe that those that enact these policies are culpable as well, someone should be responsible for policies that cause harm, why not the author of such policies?

Is Obama blame free and free also of the responsibility of the consequences of his policies both seen and unforeseen? If so, how so is he blameless?

20. Didn’t he say ‘drill, baby, drill’ in so many words?

A stupid and reckless energy policy that also included more Chernobyls!


30. Yes he did say that
and that may be why he hasn’t gone to the Gulf yet — because what is happening in the Gulf really brings into question his recent decision to open up more offshore drilling.

And Rush Limbaugh aside, one notices that Krugman is creating a straw man

29. That’s not what they’re saying

The right is saying he should have made a trip there. They’re faulting him just like Bush was faulted for flying over the Katrina and not paying a visit. Obama is letting his underlings handle it, just like Bush did. As President, he has the ultimate responsibility for the government’s response. It’s up to him to see to it that the response is adequate. Frequently, as happened with Katrina, underlings don’t do the right thing. It’s up to the CEO to make sure everything is being that can be done. So yes he does have an executive responsibility to visit the scene to see what’s going on and provide leadership. It’s like the expectation that a police chief will visit a major crime scene. And he will be faulted if he doesn’t get down there soon.


Not Your Sweetie

May 2010