'CounterPunch Diary
Panic!
Panic!
By ALEXANDER COCKBURN
Democrats, exquisitely sensitized to the footfalls of defeat by the disasters of 2000 and 2004, caught the first menacing chords of impending disaster last weekend and have been panicking ever since.
The hours they had to revel in the apparent success of their Denver convention and Obama’s big speech were pitifully brief. The very next day John McCain picked as his running mate a virtually unknown governor from Alaska and the country has gone Palin-crazy ever since.
Ignoring Obama’s solemn appeals for unity, America has become joyously divided. Evangelicals, braced by Palin’s Christian faith, have risen spryly from the bed of their indifference to McCain, a man whose relationship to the Holy Spirit is remote. Now their champion is an accredited bible-thumper, in whom the Holy Spirit burns as brightly as natural gas flares over the Arctic tundra.
Liberals, particularly women, maddened at the spectacle of attractive Governor Sarah embodying everything they loathe, flood the internet with frantic oaths and seize on every particle of gossip from Alaska suggesting that Palin is a hypocrite, a mismanager, a would-be burner of books, a bad mother and untrue to her man. Those scoffing only a few short weeks ago at the National Enquirer’s “mere unverified gossip” about John Edward’s affair, now hasten to the supermarkets to snatch up the Enquirer’s latest allegations about Palin and her family.
As the political news circuits began to buzz with news of improved polling numbers for McCain-Palin in the battleground states, Obama’s ascent towards the status of a Sure Bet is stalled. After the triumphs of Denver the candidate relapsed into the nerveless mode of early August. He had the poor judgment to go on the cable news show of Fox’s Bill O’Reilly and make the extraordinary statement that the so-called Surge in Iraq had “succeeded beyond our wildest dreams”. He calls for 10,000 more troops for Afghanistan. Move over, Sarah Palin! You only want to shoot wolves from helicopters. Real men like Obama want more helicopter gunships to mow down Afghan kids from the air.
At a stroke, with that deadly concession about the success of the surge, Obama handed McCain the opportunity, in their upcoming debates, to congratulate his Democratic opponent for acknowledging McCain’s superior political and military judgment. Simultaneously Obama foolishly threw over the side the reports of journalists on the spot like CounterPunch’s Patrick Cockburn who have been describing how the present lowering of violence in Iraq owes little to the surge in US troops, as opposed to changes in local political conditions. It certainly confirms my view that Obama rarely has the stomach to stand his ground, when challenged from the right with any vigor.
When a candidate trips up, or loses the initiative, his path becomes one endless snare. Obama’s likening of the hypocrisies of the McCain campaign to a pig wearing lipstick was swiftly converted by McCain into a sexist insult against Palin. The Democrats try to fight back by saying McCain and Palin are being unfair, are misrepresenting their views. But then, the next day, the Republicans launch a fresh slur and retain the initiative.
Ominously reminiscent of John Kerry in 2004, defensiveness seeps from a Democratic ticket endlessly trying to set the record straight. Obama’s running mate, Senator Joe Biden, pays tribute to Hilary Clinton at a campaign rally and says politely that "Quite frankly it might have been a better pick than me." This was instantly offered up on the right wing talk shows as a confession of total inadequacy.
Day after day McCain’s escorts shielded Palin from any impromptu exchanges with the press, until the eagerly awaited 3-part interviews with ABC’s Charles Gibson began last Thursday. I’ll root for anyone against an uppity, patronizing network interviewer and so I was in Palin’s corner when ABC’s Gibson went after her about the Bush Doctrine, which he made sound as though it was something you learned in school along with the Gettysburg address. No one knows what the Bush doctrine is, least of all President Bush. He’s spent seven long years trying to define it. Basically the Doctrine says it’s okay for employees or subcontracted agents of the US Government to kidnap people, lock them up in wire or concrete hutches for years at a time, regularly electrocuting them and beating their genitals until they go mad. Small wonder Sarah Palin didn’t want to get too specific.'
The hours they had to revel in the apparent success of their Denver convention and Obama’s big speech were pitifully brief. The very next day John McCain picked as his running mate a virtually unknown governor from Alaska and the country has gone Palin-crazy ever since.
Ignoring Obama’s solemn appeals for unity, America has become joyously divided. Evangelicals, braced by Palin’s Christian faith, have risen spryly from the bed of their indifference to McCain, a man whose relationship to the Holy Spirit is remote. Now their champion is an accredited bible-thumper, in whom the Holy Spirit burns as brightly as natural gas flares over the Arctic tundra.
Liberals, particularly women, maddened at the spectacle of attractive Governor Sarah embodying everything they loathe, flood the internet with frantic oaths and seize on every particle of gossip from Alaska suggesting that Palin is a hypocrite, a mismanager, a would-be burner of books, a bad mother and untrue to her man. Those scoffing only a few short weeks ago at the National Enquirer’s “mere unverified gossip” about John Edward’s affair, now hasten to the supermarkets to snatch up the Enquirer’s latest allegations about Palin and her family.
As the political news circuits began to buzz with news of improved polling numbers for McCain-Palin in the battleground states, Obama’s ascent towards the status of a Sure Bet is stalled. After the triumphs of Denver the candidate relapsed into the nerveless mode of early August. He had the poor judgment to go on the cable news show of Fox’s Bill O’Reilly and make the extraordinary statement that the so-called Surge in Iraq had “succeeded beyond our wildest dreams”. He calls for 10,000 more troops for Afghanistan. Move over, Sarah Palin! You only want to shoot wolves from helicopters. Real men like Obama want more helicopter gunships to mow down Afghan kids from the air.
At a stroke, with that deadly concession about the success of the surge, Obama handed McCain the opportunity, in their upcoming debates, to congratulate his Democratic opponent for acknowledging McCain’s superior political and military judgment. Simultaneously Obama foolishly threw over the side the reports of journalists on the spot like CounterPunch’s Patrick Cockburn who have been describing how the present lowering of violence in Iraq owes little to the surge in US troops, as opposed to changes in local political conditions. It certainly confirms my view that Obama rarely has the stomach to stand his ground, when challenged from the right with any vigor.
When a candidate trips up, or loses the initiative, his path becomes one endless snare. Obama’s likening of the hypocrisies of the McCain campaign to a pig wearing lipstick was swiftly converted by McCain into a sexist insult against Palin. The Democrats try to fight back by saying McCain and Palin are being unfair, are misrepresenting their views. But then, the next day, the Republicans launch a fresh slur and retain the initiative.
Ominously reminiscent of John Kerry in 2004, defensiveness seeps from a Democratic ticket endlessly trying to set the record straight. Obama’s running mate, Senator Joe Biden, pays tribute to Hilary Clinton at a campaign rally and says politely that "Quite frankly it might have been a better pick than me." This was instantly offered up on the right wing talk shows as a confession of total inadequacy.
Day after day McCain’s escorts shielded Palin from any impromptu exchanges with the press, until the eagerly awaited 3-part interviews with ABC’s Charles Gibson began last Thursday. I’ll root for anyone against an uppity, patronizing network interviewer and so I was in Palin’s corner when ABC’s Gibson went after her about the Bush Doctrine, which he made sound as though it was something you learned in school along with the Gettysburg address. No one knows what the Bush doctrine is, least of all President Bush. He’s spent seven long years trying to define it. Basically the Doctrine says it’s okay for employees or subcontracted agents of the US Government to kidnap people, lock them up in wire or concrete hutches for years at a time, regularly electrocuting them and beating their genitals until they go mad. Small wonder Sarah Palin didn’t want to get too specific.'
Lees verder: http://www.counterpunch.org/
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten