Obama
Filed under: 2008 elections — Michael Reynolds on January 27, 2008 @ 9:35 pm CET
I hate being fooled. You can only be fooled if you believe.
I hate being disappointed. So every day I strap on my cynic’s armor: helmet, chainmail, breastplate, gauntlets, snark, smirk and wry look.
My one confident prediction for this election is that a) someone will be elected, and b) they will be a disappointment. That’s my 80 proof cynicism.
I backed Hillary because Hillary is tough. Because she’ll fall down seven times and stand up eight. Because she’s smart. Prepared. Because she does her homework. Because her enemies have reason to fear her.
I’m a big fan of overwhelming force, of hitting the enemy so hard they can’t think straight. The Clintons know how to kill. This is useful and necessary. It’s a dangerous world and too many Democrats lack an instinct for the jugular. Say what you will about Hillary and Bill, they know where the arteries lie close to the surface.
But this time the Clinton’s bloodthirsty instincts have been wrong. I wrote some time ago that Hillary was pulling a shiv on Obama when she needed a subtler approach. She needed to go maternal with Obama. She needed to talk about how proud he made us, what a great guy he was, and then lay her wonkery upon us and leave us to draw the conclusion that we really loved listening to Obama, but weren’t quite ready to put him in the top job.
Instead, Hillary unleashed the former President of the United States to act as attack dog. It was disproportionate force. It was too much and too fierce and hard to watch. And when this assault by the Billrog failed to finish off the skinny black kid, the audience sympathy was bound to turn. It was thrilling to see the frail-looking newcomer take every blow and stay on his feet. Americans love underdogs.
Alan Stewart Carl writes: “It’s over between the Clintons and me. And I’m willing to bet I’m not the only one feeling that way.”
I do feel that way, though not to the point of voting for a Republican — after the last eight years they need chastising. They need to go to their rooms, think about what they’ve done, and not come back downstairs until they have some new ideas. (Or at least some old ones they’ve recommitted to.) So, I won’t vote for any Republican with the possible exception of John McCain. But enough with the Clintons. Enough. Just go away. Just leave us alone.
Don’t bother telling me all the reasons Obama isn’t ready. I know them. Don’t bother pointing out every half-formed policy, every wrongheaded position. I know. Hillary’s more right than Obama. (And McCain’s more right than Obama on a number of issues.)
But it’s about more than policy papers now. Its about being sick to death of Atwater-Clinton-Rove politics. It’s about being nauseated by the idea of more automatic, tit-for-tat partisanship, more strategic divisiveness. Enough of Republican fear-mongering. Enough of the Democratic politics of envy and resentment. Enough of using patriotism as a weapon. Enough of triangulating. Enough with the seething and the ranting and the rage-aholism.
I’m not giving up all my cynical armor. I’m keeping the snark and the smirk and the wry look. But I’m taking off the chainmail. I’m taking a chance. I’m throwing in with Obama.
1 abrisaham
January 27, 2008 @ 2:59 pm CETEvery time Hillary does not trounce her opponents she keeps getting written off. Obama is a powerfull opponent because he is being backed by a huge contingent of antiwar far left progressives along with those who are just tired of politics in this country.
We elected democrats in 2006 for the same reasons and what happened. Policitics as ususal. Nothing changed except some of the names on the doors in congress.
Hillary and Obama’s policies are almost identical. They are both left liberals with Obama being just more left of Hillary. The problem is that Michael Moore sent Hillary a letter in 2004 and she responded by saying stick it up your fanny. The rest of the democrats cow towed to the far left antiwar machine.
It was this one act above all else that made me admire her. I am opposed to the war. Was from the beginning but when she said folks this is not the time so be quiet. I had to admire her, respect her and believe that she indeed would stand up for ALL Americans as president.
She may well succumb to the anti war fervor kicked up by the Fascist left in this country but in the end they both want to end the war and bring the troops home. The problem I have and the rest of you will see should Obama ever be elected is that he will be at the blood thirsty becon call of the far left base that puts him in the White House while Hillary has shown that she will and has (REPEATEDLY) resisted these political muggings by this far left element in her party and this country.
Obama has dutifuly obliged them by voting lockstep with their wishes while using the good ole politician two step trying to convince us he is moderate. Thats why ISSUES have meant nothing in this debate.
They BOTH believe the SAME things.
People think Im crazy but after watching GWB play to his base. GWB 1 play to his base. Ronnie Reagan play to his base. Richard Nixon play to his base. Eisenhower play to his base……(Notice I left Bill Clinton out…you know the one that passed welfare reform against the screams of anguish by his base).
But Obama will be different. He will. Yes he will. Oh yes he will. We don’t care if hes a far left loon, he’s a politician who says he will be moderate. Oh yes he will. Once in power he will reject those people who put him there. Oh yes he will. Fingers going in my ears now….Yes he willl…………..LALALALALALALALA….yes he will.
2 kreiz
January 27, 2008 @ 3:55 pm CETWho woulda guessed that it would still be an open race at Super T? Obama’s Reagan in reverse, man. He’s got serious Teflon. A lesser candidate would’ve been pummeled- but Barack withstands the barrage. He’s not open to frontal assaults. Is Hillary a front-attacking Marine- or is she nimble enough to be a MacArthurite, attacking Obama’s flanks? I’m guessing she’s a Marine- taking everything straight on. Not good.
Still, though Barack’s won the heart of his party, has he closed the deal on its safer establishment impulse? Guess we’ll find out soon. I don’t see him winning NY. But could CA be in play?
3 michaelreynolds
January 27, 2008 @ 4:06 pm CETKreiz:If I were betting the mortgage I’d still pick Hillary to win. But there’s something happening here, as Crosby, Stills and Nash would say. What it is ain’t exactly clear. We’ll know in about 10 days.
4 kreiz
January 27, 2008 @ 4:35 pm CETIt was Buffalo Springfield but Stills & Young were in that band- so close enough.
Understand on Hillary as the safe bet. But you’re right about the uncertainty- and if Obama picks up steam in CA, for example, it could be a jump ball. Will people vote their heart instead of their heads? There’s enough political fatigue out there that may invite Obama’s freshness. I don’t discount that at all.
One more Q, MR. Bill’s temper has always been legendary, but he was able to keep it under wraps in public. He seems to let it fly much more freely now (I’m thinking back on the 06 Chris Wallace interview). I don’t think it helps him. Is it harder for him to control when he’s protecting Hillary (as opposed to himself)? Could it be tied to his heart surgery? Whatdoyathink?
5 kreiz
January 27, 2008 @ 4:44 pm CETI keep thinking Reagan in 76. He was the party’s favorite, their heartthrob- but they played it safe & opted for Ford- to their ultimate regret. (They remedied it in 80.) Will the Dems have more gumption?
6 Jules Crittenden » Clinton Lied, People Died*
January 27, 2008 @ 4:48 pm CET[…] Talk about vast conspiracies. How come everone’s piling on? Jawa’s Hillary Clinton caption contest. Meanwhile, here’s a sorely disappointed Clinton fan disillusioned by the Clintonian Clintonism. […]
7 michaelreynolds
January 27, 2008 @ 5:10 pm CETKreiz:You’re a very smart guy. And I say that because you agree with my wife. She’s been telling me for some time that there’s something off about Bill. That he seems unfocused, dotty, a little irrational.
8 kreiz
January 27, 2008 @ 5:46 pm CETYour wife’s right (as usual, I suspect): Bill doesn’t seem to have the anger-management impulse control he used to have. The only other pre-surgery public outburst I recall was when he lashed out at the press (re Monica) in the summer of 08. It was quickly followed up by a mea culpa. He seems to be seething now. Doesn’t play nearly as well- especialy in the face of Barack’s cool.
9 Donklephant » Blog Archive » The Obama Shift Continues
January 27, 2008 @ 6:08 pm CET[…] Michael Reynolds joins the Obama crowd… But it’s about more than policy papers now. Its about being sick to death of Atwater-Clinton-Rove […]
10 C Stanley
January 27, 2008 @ 7:34 pm CETHeart disease and heart meds can definitely have some effects. And then there’s the GHB effect too, like Poppy choking up all the time about W. It seems that politics gets a lot more personal when one gets older- and that it’s harder to watch a loved one get beat up than it is to take the punches yourself (and yeah, it could be a mistake to assume love between Bill and Hill, but I think in their own fashion they actually have quite deep emotional ties.)