Tried To Warn You
Friday, October 10, 2008 by Michael Reynolds
Let the "I told you so's" begin.
Today Krauthammer makes the shocking discovery that Obama's not actually a terrorist or a racist loon.
Rick Moran reaches roughly the same conclusion.
In comments at Rightwingnuthouse back at the beginning of July I wrote:
Attacks on Obama have failed because they are not on target. An attack has to resonate with voters. It has to seem plausible. Attacks on Obama have been off-target and absurd, products of fantasy, paranoia and delusion. Not to mention a certain contempt for the electorate.
Obama was never Obambi, never a naif, never a radical, never a terrorist sympathizer, never weak, never passive, never any of the things his inept attackers claimed.
My concluding line from that first comment at Rightwingnuthouse:
Today Krauthammer makes the shocking discovery that Obama's not actually a terrorist or a racist loon.
Why are these associations important? Do I think Obama is as corrupt as Rezko? Or shares Wright's angry racism or Ayers' unreconstructed 1960s radicalism?
No. But that does not make these associations irrelevant. They tell us two important things about Obama.
First, his cynicism and ruthlessness. He found these men useful, and use them he did.
Rick Moran reaches roughly the same conclusion.
Obama’s friendship with Ayers, Rezko, Wright, Pfleger, Meeks, Khalidi, as well as his working with Richard Daley’s Chicago Machine was the result of his overweening ambition and not due to any ideological affinity or strain of corruption in his makeup. [snip] But frankly, Obama is someone who impresses me as having no real ideology save that which can get him elected.
In comments at Rightwingnuthouse back at the beginning of July I wrote:
And in August:
Obama strikes me as just a bit ruthless. It’s one of the reasons I’ve supported him. He’ll do what he has to do to get re-elected and to ensure his place in history. [snip]
This is why you’re all failing to really hurt Obama. He’s not a naif. He’s not corrupt. He’s not a radical. He’s not weak. And accusing him of being a narcissist—really? A presidential candidate who thinks he’s just half a step short of being Jesus? What a shock that would be.
Biden’s the right choice. And you’re still off-base trying to picture Obama as naive. This was not a naive choice. Obama is closer to being ruthless than naive.
I’ll tell you what: I’ll bet you a bottle of your favorite whatever ($70 max. value, so that leaves out the Macallan 55 year,) that a year from now, if Obama wins, you’ll agree with me on that characterization.
To which Rick replied:
Did you read his comments on China? Holy Christ what a naive idiot! China evicts 10,000 people to make way for a new runway, not paying them for their farmland and threatening them with violence unless they left – no recourse to a court nor appeal to a higher authority. And Obama thinks we should be more like China because they improved their airport so efficiently?
Either naive or a commie. Which is it?
ed.
Attacks on Obama have failed because they are not on target. An attack has to resonate with voters. It has to seem plausible. Attacks on Obama have been off-target and absurd, products of fantasy, paranoia and delusion. Not to mention a certain contempt for the electorate.
Obama was never Obambi, never a naif, never a radical, never a terrorist sympathizer, never weak, never passive, never any of the things his inept attackers claimed.
My concluding line from that first comment at Rightwingnuthouse:
He’s not Carter. He’s not Clinton. And he’s not JFK. He’s Bobby Kennedy.
| »
