Flineo’s short documentary “Movement” raises questions about Obama’s motivations…Axelrod’s “movement building” — where have we seen this all before?

You might want to read about Fascism, here, in the Wikipedia.

Then read Jonah Goldberg’s “Barack Obama, the Yuppie Candidate” or this piece of Goldberg’s “Notes on Obama & Liberal Fascism

And then you could read a very radical point of view from Axis of Logic, called “Hope, Change, and Pissing in the Wind: Of Obama, Democrats, and the Power Elite ” (They have his number, and so does Goldberg)

Lin Farley has a fantastic read up, apropos to millions of “Typical White People” called “Classism

Here is a little taste…

“…Obama has had a problem with lower-income, downscale, blue-collar democrats from the beginning. He typically appeals to better educated, upscale Democrats.”

Obama’s chief strategist, David Axelrod, has denied this. But how he could do so is a puzzle to anyone who has followed Chicago politics.

Since he began running for public office the challenge Obama faces in working-class, white ethnic neighborhoods is well known. Richard Dorsch, a 53-year-old paramedic Fire Chief from Chicago’s Edison Park told Przybyla he supported Clinton in the Illinois primary, but he will vote for John McCain if Obama wins the nomination. This is why:

“When he talks to you, it’s like he’s talking down to you. He doesn’t have the experience to talk like that.”

This is not racism, which is the popular reason asserted for Obama’s poor showing with white working class voters. It is class. And class is the elephant in the room that some pundits reference but always pejoratively. One can almost hear them saying, ‘don’t you get it? these ignorant racist stumblebums are the clods keeping Obama from sweeping to victory.’

Unfortunately, this demonstrates how little pundits do their homework. The issue of these voters raises a huge, and perhaps insurmountable problem for the Democrats in November with Obama as their standard bearer…”

Many of us very well educated, upper middle class voters don’t want Obama. It isn’t a matter of racism. It’s because we don’t like his tactics. We don’t like his pastor’s radical Afrocentrism. We don’t like his target-marketing, and we don’t like his politics. We don’t like the fact that he appears to be an “empty suit.” We don’t like his bitterness, arrogance, or the fact that he thinks he is a grass roots agitator in a time when the country needs some solutions to VERY basic things that the Clinton camp would be far better at solving.

He’s pro-war. That’s obvious. And for that, I’m against him. He’s wishy-washy, and doublespeaks with the best of them.

His ego? Read “the F word” in the articles above– where have we seen that before?

What’s worse? It appears that he can be easily bought. Take a look at the 527’s in terms of agenda. And then, Rezko. It reeks, all of it, when you add it up. He’s VERY, VERY divisive in an era when we don’t need that.

Here’s SF Gate on “White males aren’t feeling the love” as a second read after Lin’s piece above.

Obama didn’t win California for a reason. Activism was born here. We know how to spot a fake.

The latest read — by Victor Davis Hansen, on the Obama’s “They” — don’t miss it.

Another little taste…

“…Perhaps this nebulous and ever changing they evokes the same forces that Michelle Obama says are now thwarting her husband’s phenomenally successful campaign. Sometime they seem to be politicos, or media pundits, or hostile rule keepers who do all they can to sabotage the Obamas: “They tell you to raise money, you raise money. “They tell you to build an organization, and you build an organization.”

But at other times they for Michelle Obama can apparently also mean faceless government officials who likewise conspire against the American public as soon as it makes any progress — perhaps like achieving the Obama’s 2007 $4 million annual income, or $1.6 million home: “We live in a nation where they set the bar and you try to get over the bar and they move the bar.”

On rarer occasions, Michelle Obama becomes somewhat more specific with her they, and so names them as “folks.” But who and where these folks are, we are never told: “Folks set the bar, and then you work hard and you reach the bar — sometimes you surpass the bar — and then they move the bar!”

The multifarious use of they tells us a great deal about the Obamas. In one of the many manifestations of they, there is a sort of resentment here, the evocation of someone or something to blame when it is time to buy high-priced arugula or send the kids to summer camp or explain why you will lose Pennsylvania…”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s