I was going to write up the finisher to busting the myth of Ron Paul today, but then I came across these items from David Corn via his blog, and Matthew Rothschild over at The Progressive Magazine's web site. In Corn's most recent entry, he explains Obama's big problem going into Super Tuesday.
With Obama, it's not about his career highlights, it's about him. To buy his case, a voter must believe in him, have faith in him, place hope in him--must have (or feel) a connection with him. And this is where the problem kicks in.
Corn goes on to write of Obama:
When Supersized Tuesday first materialized, political observers made the obvious observation that it would favor any candidate with big bucks, extensive organization, and/or establishment backing. But it also gives an advantage to any candidate with a conventional (and, thus, easy-to-convey) message. And that isn't Barack Obama.
The whole piece is worth reading, and before Obama supporters dismiss it I suggest taking a step back from the kool-aid table and really giving the analysis some deep thought.
Matthew Rothschild takes shots at both Obama and Clinton. In this column, he writes:
To her credit, she has a long history of working for children’s rights and women’s rights.
But that’s not the totality of her record.
Thirty-two years ago, she joined the Rose Law Firm in Arkansas, which represented such change agents as Tyson Foods, GM, Weyerhaeuser and Wal-Mart.
Hillary herself represented the utilities against the grassroots group ACORN, which was trying to keep rates down, and she represented Coca-Cola against a disabled veteran who was denied full benefits from the company, as Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair note on Counterpunch. (She won both cases for her corporate masters.)
She was the agent of something but I wouldn’t call it change when she then joined Wal-Mart’s Board of Directors.
Anyone who thinks Hillary Clinton isn't a tool of corporations, needs to think again. She is not on our side. But Rothschild isn't giving Obama any praise, either, in the wake of his remarks about Ronald Reagan. For good reason.
Just what are those "excesses" of the 1960s and 1970s that he’s alluding to?
The civil rights movement?
The environmental movement?
The women’s liberation movement?
The gay rights movement?
And yes, the government did grow. But we got the Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and a host of other federal agencies that protected us from the predations of private corporations.
For Obama to now laud Reagan for restoring "entrepreneurship," the very buzzword you hear right before the sting of deregulation, is either shockingly naïve or reactionary—or it betrays a willingness of Obama to find common ground in ideological quicksand.
As someone pointed out, the decision over whether to vote for Obama or Clinton may be compared to choosing between Coke and Pepsi. No matter which one you choose, you're still voting for something that you know is bad for you, that is an over-packaged and over-marketed vessel of empty calories (promises), and that is a wholly corporate brand. And what kind of choice is that?
Real progressives see through the lie that is the 'Clinton versus Obama' narrative. We see through all the lies, the distortions, the empty rhetoric and false promises. And we know that no matter what happens, should either Obama or Clinton nab the Democratic nomination the party as we know it is finished. If the nominee loses, it'll be business as usual with a timid Democratic Congress rubber-stamping the GOP dictator's fascist policies until the next GOP rubber-stamp Congress comes into power. And even if the nominee manages to squeak into office, the DLC will most certainly end Howard Dean and it'll be four to eight more years of the Democratic president being walked all over by the GOP. History has a nasty habit of repeating itself, and I suspect this year is no different.
The only real hope of avoiding all this is, of course, an Edwards nomination. Or Kucinich, but that's about as likely to happen as a pint of Boddington pub ale getting up on a pair of legs to sing the national anthem. But the way things are going so far, it doesn't look as though Edwards shall even be in a position to be the proverbial president-maker at a brokered convention. So it's up to the real progressives in the Democratic Party to come to the rescue. Whether we have enough numbers to pull that off, however, is up in the air.
P.S.
Almost forgot, today is Sunday Funday, so here's a cool video for your entertainment. Hope you like Manowar and Motorhead. :^)