Wednesday, February 13, 2008

The Obama dilemma

Megan doesn't know how to respond to Obama. On the one hand, all them kids seem to love him, so if she lets her latent racial bias out, the stuff that keeps Steve Sailer comin back for more, she'll officially have to give up pretending to still be young n hip. And Obama is dethroning Hillary, which, quite frankly, probably gets Megan so excited as to be sexually aroused. On the other hand, while Obama's not quite a pure progressive, he's the closest we've come to one in about 30 years, and he has one of the more humble backgrounds of major candidates in recent memory. If Obama were to carry through on his promises, and to continue their natural progression, sacred cows such as the profit motive and the mistaken conflation of business interests with the national well-being would be in danger. So when Megan says

I'm watching his speech now, and it's inspiring. But it's also saddening, because deep down, I don't believe that Obama is going to change Washington, eliminate lobbying, etc. I wish he wouldn't tell me things that I can't possibly believe--and moreover that I can't really understand anyone believing. He might be the best president; he might even make Washington work a little better, though I kind of doubt it. But he isn't going to transform American politics in the utopian way his speech implies. No one who has dried out behind the ears could reasonably believe that he has this power. So why is he saying he does?
you can be forgiven for finding her to be disingenuous. (Btw "dried out behind the ears"? I grew up roughly 150 miles north of Megan, went into the city every chance I could before moving here, and have never heard the slang she uses before.) What Obama is threatening is the very power structure that keeps Megan employed. If she weren't a useful idiot she'd be an office manager somewhere in Westchester, in a gig her Dad found for her.
Megan has to support Obama, considering her visceral hatred of Hillary, but, ironically, Hillary would be better for her career. Granted, Megan would have to give up the libertarianism and go harder right like Instaputz has, and just save the lib for drugs and guns, but Hillary hatred is a national pathology, and feeding it has been beneficial to more than one pundit's career. And Hillary wouldn't challenge the status quo to nearly the same degree, allowing the dominant corporate culture to continue on relatively unmolested.
Besides which, does Megan really want to give up her Hillary hatred? It seems this hate is what animates all her political opinions. Look at this post
I'm kind of fascinated by the strategy of politics--by the way that Hillary seems to be ostentatiously trying not to be seen campaigning in the states she is going to lose, because the campaign would rather have the media reporting that she's conceded a given state, than hand Obama another "surprise" victory.

But deep down there's something wrong with all this. One can debate whether many things are permissible, or even vital, to democracy, even down to massive campaign contributions and backroom deals with politicians. But I think we can all agree that elections should not depend on your skill at manipulating the media, or garnering the support of the local activists with the best logistical skills at organizing things like election-day carpools.
and tell me how Megan is going to pick such petty nits with anyone else. Like it or not, all of those things are necessary in modern politics, and the truth is Hillary is being relatively transparent with her moves (transparent in the sense of being honest, not obvious), and Obama is just as "guilty" of attempting to manipulate the media and co-ordinate strategy down to the micro level. Every candidate since McGovern's primary campaign in 72 has taken these steps, or at least every serious candidate. Who is Megan going to blame EVERYTHING on if Hillary goes away, back to the Senate? Obama? Megan has amply demonstrated she's too cowed by his skin color to respond to him with the venom that must lurk beneath the surface, something which in and of itself suggests a latent racial bias, and a victory by him would mean bad times for Megan and her ilk.
One of the truly great things about Obama is watching him play the press like a finely tuned instrument. The MSM has basically two options in regards to him (FauxNews and Barack Hussein Obama chants excepted); become an open cheerleader for him, as all of MSNBC has done, or stfu and sit on the sidelines, maybe toss the occasional softball piece vaguely in his direction, with the intent not to make contact, as Megan seems to be doing. The way Obama has allowed his race to cow the otherwise rightwing talking point parroting MSM is a beautiful thing to behold, tactically speaking. Megan probably finds it distasteful, but thankfully she'll never have the courage to say it, leaving it to crush boy to let a reader call Obama the anti-christ.
Megan is boxed in, and it's beautiful to see. The question is whether she'll snap, and put up a post ole Steve Sailer will love. Anyone wanna lay odds?


Herr Doktor Bimler said...

Btw "dried out behind the ears"?
No, Brad, that makes perfect sense as the converse of being inexperienced (i.e. wet behind the ears). It's quite witty, and I wish I'd said it myself. In fact I probably will.

brad said...

Semi-fair point, save that seems Megan didn't coin it, and "dried out" is much clunkier than "dry".

spencer said...

Yeah, it's a mildly clever twist on a dessicated old cliche, but Megan wouldn't be Megan if she didn't throw in an unnecessary word or three somewhere.

(It took me about forty seconds to come up with "dessicated" as a stand-in for "shopworn" or "hoary" as modifiers for "cliche" - both of which are themselves cliches. I mention this only to encourage Megan to put just a smidge more effort into her writing - turns out that it's a lot easier than it might appear, dearie.)