Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
"Barack Obama and The Audacity of Deception"
I'm an adamant, unwavering Obama supporter, but one of my friends recently sent me this scalding critique of him. I was just wondering how TPM feels about it.
'Barack Obama and the Audacity of Deception: The Manufacture of the Progressive Illusion'
By Paul StreetBarack Obama and his corporate handlers are masters of smoke and mirrors. Obama claims to have bumped his Afro-centric pastor from his official presidential announcement to "protect" the minister, rather than to shield his own candidacy. Obama implies that Hillary Clinton is a tool of corporate money, when he is a cog in the very same machine. He tells a Black audience that his own conception was made possible by civil rights struggles at Selma, Alabama, 1965, and Birmingham, 1963 - but Obama was born in 1961. And he claims a vote for him is the equivalent of joining the anti-war movement. Of course, real anti-war activity isn't that easy - what comes easy for Barack Obama, is lying.
read on:http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?Itemid=34&id=463&option=com_content&task=view
Comments (13)
Just to reiterate: this is not some kind of veiled attempt at trolling. I do genuinely support Obama, but this article seems to attack him on some legitimate points. Given that the big trend this week seems to be writing about why people are supporting Obama and Clinton, I thought this'd be an interesting chance for Obama supporters to take a stand on their beliefs.
March 18, 2008 8:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
blackagendareport.com is not a reliable source. they've been 100% anti-Obama all along, because he is not a militant black nationalist. they are the 'purity trolls' of the black online community.
March 18, 2008 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, the friend in question is a self-fashioned college anarchist who attends self-parodying rallies with names like "U.S. Out of Everything." I mean, clearly, this article has little love for Obama, but I'm not sure if we should simply dismiss the issue of lobbied money because the source doesn't wake a warm, embracing tone. After all, Dick Morris is a sleazebag who hates the Clintons, but some of what he says is right on target.
March 18, 2008 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. The idea that if someone is a jerk he can never state a fact, is absurd. Andrew Sullivan did a piece on the Clinton's last week that was swimming with facts and sharp analysis; a lot of people who can't stand him, dismissed the thing all for that. Even a congential liar can tell the truith now then, though by accident. I do think this piece is a bit strong, but some of it mirrors some doubts I've been having about Obama. I am espcially concerned abgout his dumping his pastor, for that is what any ruthless politican would do and Obama is supposed to be The Different One. Very bad move on his part, also, it suggests lack of loyalty. I do not like that in a president.
March 18, 2008 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
True, it was bad how he simply jettisoned his pastor like that. However, given that he is slated to deliver a hype-stuffed speech on Wright and race today, I'm going to keep the gavel suspended, so to speak, and delay my final verdict on the whole imbroglio 'till afterwards.
I can understand why he did it, though. I mean, touting a "new kind of politics" isn't the easiest thing in the world. If we're to believe all the latest Gallup polls, it's evident that these Wright remarks have hurt his lead, and the way the schmucks at Fox are hammering home on this issue despite Obama's distance from it is, to me, fairly indicative of the bile they'd retch forth Obama took a more defiant stand. Now, that's not to say I like it, but I do understand it.
March 18, 2008 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Barack never said that, as far as I can tell.
Here's a similar false attack on Obama, disproved by Snopes.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/saywhat.asp
March 18, 2008 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
You mean his claim that civil rights movements helped conceive his birth *after* the fact? Yes he did - the speech is on his website http://www.barackobama.com/2007/03/04/selma_voting_rights_march_comm.php
I think the article summarises some of his inconsistencies quite well. It's interesting that those here calling bullshit on it, aren't able to refute any of the facts presented. If you can, let's hear them.
March 18, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
The left and right have the same critique of Obama. His record is incongruent with his image and message. Where is the real Obama? He needs to bring the high flying rhetoric back down to earth and let the rest of us in, who do not support him.
March 18, 2008 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
airwon,
Yours is an empty criticism. It is very easy to do that, and even go as far as the blackagendareport, with "prove" that Obama is liying.
SCMadden provided a link for you to read in relation with his "incongruent record" (as you call it.) Read it.
March 18, 2008 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I read it, but it doesn't prove or disprove anything.
I'm not really looking for that kind of proof anyway.
Obama is a political animal just like all of the candidates. It is in that context that I view Obama. The incongruence is between his high flying political rhetoric and the high flying personal and spiritual rhetoric of Wright. Yes, Obama can cast him off as the crazy uncle from the past but I don't think that is enough for me. He will have to deal with the race issue on a more personal and down to earth level. Less political level, more substantive level.
Maybe he will do that today.
Does that clear it up?
March 18, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm smelling major bullshit here. After the thick-skulled opening racial diatribe, we get to more "substantial matters", namely Krugman's obviously one-sided views on universal health-care. And these jerks are citing CRP data without specifying what they're talking about. Yes, he received money from the financial sector, but what they don't tell you is that all such funds are classified by the field of employment of the donor. Here's an example: Let's say you work as a loan officer at a financial institution making $12/hr. If you've donated $200 or more to Barack Obama, cogratualtions: You're now one of his corporate masters from the financial sector. CRP data will also clearly show you that he's taken no PAC money.
This article shouldn't be dismissed because of who's hosting it. It should be dismissed because it's full of spin and nonsense.
March 18, 2008 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm amused by the fact that Paul Street, the author, is white.
March 18, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fortunately, obtuse nonsense can be pursued with equal opportunity.
March 18, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment