Here's something I wrote on my blog exactly two years and ten days ago:December 29, 2008
I caught 60 Minutes last night. It was all about Obama and his successful campaign. The program showed past and present footage of his fight for the nomination, the democratic convention, and interviews with him, the first lady apparent, and many of his staff by Steve Croft.
Obama was his usual personable, articulate, winning self--and oh, how I wanted to love him and those beautiful teeth! What a terrific American story! How different he was from the mean, seemingly crazed, illiterate little jerk he'll succeed! Surely, surely, Obama will lead us out of the wilderness and...
But I had to remember the little boy with no legs and no right arm sitting with his friend on the ground in Iraq. Obama has never, in thought, word, or deed, been an anti-war candidate. I had almost forgotten my dismay when he chose Biden as his running mate. Wait--why was I so concerned? Why did I vote for Nader? BECAUSE BIDEN'S A WARMONGER, THAT'S WHY! And the other picks of "O" that have the neo-cons slavering with delight have been just as indicative of his war-business-as-usual stance. Emmanuel, Gates--Clinton, fer cryin' out loud!--and the rest, staunch child killers all.
One of the many difficulties of taking seriously members of the media is their obvious old boy (and girl) network. How can we believe they aren't influenced by their proximity to power? I saw Croft laughing and joking with Obama and Biden and--dare I say it?--sucking up to them. He was thrilled, clearly, to be one of the boys and, significantly, he didn't pose a single hard question about war, "defense," or killing children. None of them do because, if they did, they'd find themselves shut out of the interviews and exclusive chats and dinner parties for which they live.
Now the scene of the crime is Gaza, where the Israelis continue to murder with the aid and support of the U.S. And Obama has said nothing. Soon, we'll hear, I assume, a carefully crafted, perfectly craven response excusing our Jewish friends and justifying the slaughter.
And babies will continue to be massacred.
-------------And here's a comment by my friend, Jim Wetzel:
"Obama was his usual personable, articulate, winning self--and oh, how I wanted to love him and those beautiful teeth! What a terrific American story! How different he was from the mean, seemingly crazed, illiterate little jerk he'll succeed!"
I know what you mean. I'm a sucker for -- at this point -- pretty much any officeholder who can speak extemporaneously in complete sentences. (Although it seems to me, in recent months, that Obama's abilities in this area have been eroding somewhat ... maybe it's the Curse of the Presidency or something.)
But, if the president's going to serve as an attendant to the war machine, as Obama gives every possible sign of being, I think it was better that the president be a thoroughly unattractive yokel. Plausibility in the service of evil seems much more dangerous to me than boorishness serving same.My response:
You're right, Jim. I read on one of our like-minded blogs about O. being more dangerous than Bush. I thought, how silly, how stupid, what a dumb thing to say--. But no, it's perfectly true. He has the liberals--so starved for so long--absolutely determined to see no evil in the dear leader.
And so it has come to pass. The antiwar movement has dropped dead and the citizenry, "liberals" and "progressives" included, continues its indifference to the death and destruction we inflict on the world. They enjoy the political theatrics and accept the lies because it's more comfortable. Nobody really subscribes to the idea of peace or the ideals of democracy anymore and you know, that's a shame. A crying shame.
Labels: 2008, December 29