Brass Tacks

Over the weekend I made the serious mistake of linking from Slate to an op-ed in the Washington Post by a Fellow named Peter Wehner about why Republicans like Obama. It reminded me of the old expression "Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas." I mean, that's how I felt after I read it -- itchy, squirmy, and a little disgusted at how I had contaminated myself by reading the piece. The gist of the Fellow's argument was that Republicans dislike Hillary Clnton because they remember the "mendacity and ruthlessness of the Clinton machine." He called the Clintons "unprincipled." My God! Compared to whom? Those lions of integrity, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice. Michael Mukasey, Alberto Gonzalez, Karl Rove, Michael Gerson? For sheer mendacity and ruthlessness, not to mention actual lawbreaking criminality, you can't really beat any Republican you can name. (For real outrage, I recommend Glenn Greenwald's Saturday column on the subpoena issued against James Risen of the New York Times.)

Anyway, Wehner yammers on about Obama transcending divisions and moving away from the "politics of rage." But Wehner has a warning for Obama -- if he continues to adhere to all the the views that have defined him in the public mind, and all of the beliefs that he has hitherto demonstrated, Republicans won't be able to support him. In other words, Obama is a great guy, and all he needs to do to get elected is to become a Republican.

Now, no one is surprised when a Republican advocates political and personal corruption -- that's what Republicans live for. That's why they can write pieces like this one for the Washington Post and still work for thinktanks such as the one the Fellow Wehner works for, "The 'Ethics' and Public Policy Center." From his op-ed, you know that the Fellow Wehner, Senior though he may be, wouldn't recognize an ethic if it whacked him in the face.

Here is why Hillary Clinton is mistrusted by liberals. It has nothing to do with ruthlessness or mendacity, except insofar as she has done exactly what Wehner advocates for Obama. In his HuffPost blog on January 30, Robert Scheer put it better than anyone:

"Isn't it disturbing that Sen. Clinton has received more money than any other candidate of either party from the big defense contractors? Why have the war profiteers given her twice the campaign contributions that they sent to McCain, if not for the expectation that she is on their side of the taxpayer rip-off that has seen the military budget rise to an all-time high? It's for the same reason that the bankers, Wall Street traders and other swindlers who produced our economic meltdown fund Clinton."

And this in addition to her continued lack of shame over her support of the Iraq war. In other words, Clinton did do what the Fellow Wehner advocates -- she failed to fight for liberal principles and she accepts money from enemies of liberal policies. Not content with one corrupt Democrat, the Fellow Wehner wants the other, more charming one to corrupt himself, too.

That at this late date there exists a human being, such as the Fellow Wehner, who admits that he once accepted blood money from the Bush administration and helped the administration promulgate lie after lie and crime after crime, does boggle the mind, and in fact is sufficient reason in itself for the "politics of rage" to last, like McCain's Iraq war, for a hundred years, or at least until the mess the Fellow Wehner and his cronies have managed to make of the government and the world while in power is cleaned up. Can Clinton do it, in spite of being in the pocket of the war machine and the finance machine? We don't know. Can Obama do it, in spite of not really seeming to understand the vicious ruthlessness and mendacity of the Republicans?

We don't know that either.

The underlying question of this primary and this election and the next four years is this -- was it the Clintons themselves who aroused the ire of the rightwing to such an extent that the administration they formed was unmercifully harassed from before the inauguration of 1992 to after the 2000 election, or were the Clintons simply the Democrats who happened to be there when the rightwing decided to take over? Everything the rightwing (and the media) latched onto about the Clintons, from Travelgate to the runway haircut to Monica Lewinsky seemed to me at the time to be merely a gambit in a slow-moving coup d'etat that was crowned in 2000 with the Supreme Court selection of the unelected George W, Bush. The one virtue of the Bush administration has been that their policies are so bankrupt and their members so incompetent that all but a few Americans can now understand the emptiness of the Republicans and their avid desire to destroy the U.S. in the pursuit of corporate power. The real danger of the next four years, as I see it, is that the election of any Democrat will trigger the rightwing deathsquads in all their different guises -- the media deathsquad, that hounds the president with nonsensical stories of scandal and distracts him from his business; the survivalist NRA deathsquads that pull off home-grown terrorist attacks, like the Oklahoma bombing; the lobbyist deathsquads, that gut all socially conscious or beneficial legislation, such as universal healthcare; the religious deathsquads, that harass and torment anyone who doesn't conform to a narrow and authoritarian social model; the thinktank deathsquads that propound deadly theories about the perfection of the "free market" or the horrors of "islamofacism" or the non-existence of climate change. It would actually be nice if the Fellow Wehner is telling the truth, that it is the Clintons personally that are the problem, because then the election of Obama would indeed signal a change. But if the goal of the corporatocracy is what it has seemed to be -- the permanent replacement of American democracy with a global imperialist empire and oligarchy of wealth, then Obama doesn't have a chance -- he will either be corrupted or destroyed.

The Fellow Wehner and his cronies are warning us already, but the warning is hard to read. A lot depends on your sense of how ruthless they are. My sense is that they are deadly ruthless. I hope I'm wrong.

Comments

[jdm58]

Hillary has proven she can stand up to any opponent, and win. Obama gives the impression of "Mr.Smith Goes to Washington". He's un-vetted in the big bad political world, and the CorporoFascist political machine that runs Congress. FYI, as someone who has lived in Iran, I can tell you that the Iranian Guard IS a terror organization- just as Muktada Al Sadr, Hamas, or any number of the sunni survivors of their militia attacks. Calling a spade a spade does NOT mean going to war. It's standing up for something. JFK did it with Moscow, and we didn't villify HIM for it.

[S1m0n]

Hilary is mistrausted by liberals because she quit on us, not because of who contributes what, although that might be a why she did it.

[CitizenE]

It's about power, no question.
It would be good to remember that the Dem motto is: "hell in a handcart, to hell with the bullet train," but the course of events will sweep everything before it; the devil we know vs. the devil we don't, knowing that history has forged few heroes, and many, many scoundrels, but some heroes nonetheless.

[MrsHaskell]

Thanks Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, for leaving us with two vainglorious, corporatist Democratic candidates only a right-wing think tank could love.

Hello, President McCain.

[amberglow]

This is absolutely right--anyone who thinks Republicans sincerely want to help the majority of Americans is either insane or asleep. Over and over--since Nixon--they've shown their true colors.

[Caro]

Actually, Obama doesn't have to go very far to become a Republican.

We Illinois progressives sent him to the U.S. Senate, where he promptly joined the Joe Lieberman wing of the Democratic Party.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/02/01/national-journal-rates-obama-1-liberal-senator/

His economic advisers are very conservative, from the University of Chicago-Milton Friedman school of economics.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080211/fraser

My favorite economist, Paul Krugman, caught Obama using right-wing talking points on what to do about Social Security
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/16/opinion/16krugman.html

and about his health care plan.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/opinion/30krugman.html

Obama has shown repeatedly what good friends he is with anti-gay African American preachers.
http://direland.typepad.com/direland/2007/11/obamas-anti-gay.html

And his chief political adviser is a Daley machine strategist.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/01/magazine/01axelrod.t.html

I'm not saying that Clinton is perfect, but I am saying that her proposals are more progressive than Obama's. And that's why I'll be voting for her tomorrow.

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAc­countable.­com

[BarryChamplain]

"... or were the Clintons simply the Democrats who happened to be there when the rightwing decided to take over?"


Short answer: yup.

I remember saying to anyone who would listen, during the Clinton persecutions, that at the end of Bill's presidency, the likely candidate would be Al Gore; therefore, Bill and Hillary Clinton would suddenly cease being the Devil. Al Gore, overnight, would become The Devil.


Al Gore (or his handlers) thought he could run from the successful Clinton presidency, and the Red Meanies would leave him alone. What he got: Earth tones, intellectuals are "obnoxious", "Love Story" and inventing the internet.

And nobody seemed to have a media memory of who the Worst People In The World had been, allegedly, for the previous eight years. It was like living in a bad road company production of "Animal Farm".

Coup d'etat is right. Take the corporate media out, and just shoot them. They're telling an onerous bullshit story to millions of citizens who count on them for critical data, that just isn't true and is deliberately geared to poison our entire representative democratic republican system.

Show me another "free" country where they'd put up with this shit. Hugo Chavez got it exactly right (DESPITE the CW on Chavez!): you're gonna spend 24/7, advocating the overthrow of the government? Hope you enjoyed your license to broadcast. You're toast, brother.

Free speech is groovy and all... but this ain't it. This is a FIX, that must be STOPPED.

[tbone99]

Good post Jane- I think you hit the nail on the head when you wondered if the Repugs went after the Clintons or would any Democrat have done.And I think its the second-

Dems are doing treating progressives the way they have African Americans for years -they know they have no where else to go, so the they cut the difference with the Repugs, knowing the other choice would be worse.

Nevertheless , for all their scouring( to the tune of millions of dollars) of the Clintons they came up with ---nothing.Will we able to say the same about Obama and Michelle- after a decade of hostile scrutiny will he still be "the Uniter"

[opines]

More and more women Democratic voters are supporting Barack Obama.

They have recognized that by doing so, the feminist cause will strengthen during an Obama Presidency. So, if they prefer his leadership
over Clinton's, the joy of having the first woman in the Oval Office must be deferred.

By doing so, they are demonstrating impressive civic virtue. Their decision is a credit to the feminist cause, surely not traitorous.

[freespeach]

Great article Jane.

Corporatocracy is the word that best describes our current state of affairs.
It is really "we the people" vs. massive out of control multi-national corporations.

But because the corporatocracy is so much smarter than we are, and because they have 100% ownership and control of the media, they have been able to frame the debate. They have created a false battle between left and right with wedge issues.

So both the hippie and the trailer park redneck lose jobs to "free trade"....and both lose personal freedoms to the "war on terror"....and both have no medical coverage for their families while corporate profits and payouts to executives are beyond obscene.

But the hippie and the redneck do not unite against the corporate scum who screw them out of their jobs and deny them health care. They are too busy fighting each other over Jeeezis and gay marriage, too busy waving their Democrat or Republican banners.
Meanwhile the Repuke fat cats and the Democratic party fat cats march in corporate lock step. Both have still never met a trade deal they didn't like. Both parties fund the crime in Iraq while they preach different mantras to their people.

So as for Obama and his potential to sell out progressives and show loyalty to corporate America? He would not have gotten this far if he wasn't already on board with the program.

So many people are so desperate for change and hope will see the mirage they crave. So when they see Obama, they see what they need, not who he really is. He is the man who will disappoint us all more than Nancy Pelosi did. He is not working for us, he is working for corporate America.

[gopindrag]

The money that would destroy Obama IS destroying America. Sometimes I feel like the homeowner going though the ashes that used to be home.

[darcy]

Jane, you hit the nail and drove it in!

[May2002]

In this mass echo chamber, Obama has become a saint, or I should say the second coming of Jesus Christ.

I just read NYTimes article, "Nuclear Leaks and Response Tested Obama in Senate," which vividly depicts a Obama who is no better and no worse than any other politician.

In one of his legislation effort, he failed to meet his constituents' demands but bowed to special interests.

No only that, during Iowa campaign, he actually made false claim--boasting that he had passed such a bill.

Finally when the New York Times confronted him (for this reporting), he could hardly explain it.

Right now, since worshipping Obama is in such vogue, this type of real facts usually used to judge a candidate, all becomes non-important. Especially in the misty eyes of young voters, Obama can do no wrong.

So I must say Obama must be a second coming of Jesus Christ. Because he has not been evaluated from a human being level or measured as another politician.

Even mainstream media doesn't do their duties any more, but becomes the loudest macrophone that drives this Obama phenomenon so quickly to its high attitude.

By the way, the link of the New York Times article is the following:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon.html?em&ex=1202274000&en=49167536d01105ab&ei=5087%0A

[Rockyman]

Yes, "they are deadly ruthless" and will do whatever they can to stop ANY Dem from election. They will lie, distort, slime and characterize any Dem as "weak" on terror and ill-equipped for a post 9/11 evil world. As you say the "corporatocracy" is all about retaining control of as much power as possible. It is ALL about money. And we all have been compliant. The Repugs offer the "haves" protection from the "have-nots". The "compassionate" part of the party is for money. It assumes if you have wealth you are "deserving" and the have-nots also deserve their plight......and to feel some discomfort. We are a country lacking in empathy. We have become a fudiciary emotionless robot with evoking envy our primary purpose. And the "ruling class" loves our indebtedness, weariness, sense of powerlessness. We are clearly moving even further in this direction and is a "devolution" of a once fairer and responsible country. As they say, "follow the money".......into the gutter!

[julianne]

If nominated, Obama needs a plan to unleash revolutionary action and immediate arrests if he is assassinated. Top to bottom, what has gone on over the past 8 years has been promulgated by violent private corporate interests and their unnatural influence in our politics and economy in order to seize control of our political and intelligence institutions and military and use them to extend their financial empires throughout the world. By doing so, they have brought the world down on us and destroyed the protocols by which we live. They have shown that they are not American citizens and have no long term plans for the American people other than continuing to colonize the U.S. until they devour everything or create a nuclear conflagration. Clearly, they've shown that their illegal invasion of Iraq was also an attack on us. They have also contributed significantly to the rise of worldwide plagues and disease which, historically, follows such widespread psychological and physical corruption. If Obama thinks of the past and present leaders of the Republican Party and their major corporate-fascist collaborators appointed by Bush as the "political opposition" he won't stand a chance. He must immediately put the major globalist-fascist American syndicates' owners on notice, that the military will come for them and their familes' patriarchs after his death. But he must have a master plan to do this that won't implode the economy. That will require a hardcore Vice-President and Cabinet who, upon his election, will immediately begin to cleanse the dead-souled, fascist scum in the NSA, CIA, FBI, Pentagon, and Justice Department with a concurrent re-investigation of 9/11 and an investigation of the 2000 election in Florida. Both investigations might prove the entire previous administration illigitimate or cause such outrage that Bush's appointmentees to the Supreme Court would have to step down. If elected President he should not try to please anyone with the appointments he makes for Attorny General or anyone else required to at last begin to protect the country from the monarchist-fascist right and restore the rule of law.