1968, U.S. Attention Deficit Disorder And Obama’s Boomer Attack (Updated 8:30 PM)

Obama’s assuredly unqualified to be president but assuredly charismatic. Soft expectations also allow him to embrace Rove-esque tactics and get away with it. A fascinating example of mass conspiratorial hypocrisy. Like Rove, but without his direct ‘honesty’, Obama indirectly seeks to smear, attack and misrepresent his opponent’s (HRC) strength. Tonight on Tweety, a woman journalist blurts that Obama “gets me hot and bothered” and “gushing”. (Let’s put that awful mental picture aside, shall we?).

Obama Is Not Down With Boomers

Media’s rush to bring down HRC gives Obama a pass on so many things. Most distrubingly, we see Obama embrace the most bigoted elements of religious intolerance in his campaign; it gets an article here and there but no real sustained coverage. His progressive and netroots backers collude in this under the table courting of the intolerant vote — after all, anyone but HRC, right?

Would any other candidate get this pass? Republican or Democrat? Then, Obama trots out a new accent and cadence every three days. Not a peep from his fawning cheerleaders. And now Obama claims his complete and utter lack of life experience makes him the better candidate. After all, he has discovered something new and apocalyptic — HRC (Biden et. al.) are – gasp – Boomers. And we all know what that means (wink, wink, nudge, nudge, know what I mean?). This is a car wreck in the making my friends, akin to the Democratics ignorant and all too predictably doomed embrace of John Kerry (of all people given his history with veterans) in 2004. “Reporting for duty”, indeed.

We hold no brief for HRC per se. See our WWLD post elsewhere. We do note, however, that the Clinton White House, even under the most ferocious effort of the Movement to mount a coup d’etat, was more interested in who had good ideas rather than whether one had a R or D after their name. We had terrific access to senior personnel (that you saw on TV and the like — even though we were nominally a card-carrying member (albeit increasingly in form only) of the VRWC) . Totallty unlike this regime, Bush 41 or RWR. That part of the Clinton legacy is willfully ignored. Largely, in our opinion, because the Washington Press corps is utterly bereft of any ideas; they wouldn’t know an original one if it kicked them in the groin with the force of 10,000 sledgehammers. (And they resent that Clinton finished the NY Times crossword puzzles in ink).

Audacity, Live at the Filmore, Opening For The Clueless (General Admission)


You may recall Dear Reader that we were on the ground in South Carolina during 2000. We saw first hand Ralph Reed and Karl Rove’s fear and hate mongering in action. We also dined at the table with close members of the family as we watched the results came in. We will never forgive or forget. (That our candidate then morphed into one of the Warlord’s most reliable delusionists is (in Kevin Kline’s words from a ‘Fish Called Wanda’ — “DISAPPOINTING”) merely shows the weakness of the human spirit.) Still, watching Obama try to take the high road mimicking a Chinese-made Dollar Store version of MLK while also calling out the mouth breathers on bottom track is appalling. Especially for such an empty suit.

If Obama were a plagarist ala Biden, he might as well steal these words:

“The hippies were utopian, deluded, egomaniacs – and fundamentally very stupid. Think Neil from The Young Ones. They had this infantile delusion, which still permeates our society, that when bad things happen it is a sign that the order of the world is somehow disharmonious, and that as a remedy – in that most hideous Blairite mantra – ‘something must be done’.”

But one thing trivial Law Review tenure teaches anyone (besides tedium beyond imagination) — and Harvard Law Review is as trivial as any other of the Ivy or near Ivy Reviews — is how to avoid plagarism even while summoning its ethereal facsimile. The whole mediocre versus great artists thing, but with footnotes.

Yet the essay by Jerome Weeks on music revolutions above makes some good points. Monterey and Jefferson Airplane’s “Volunteers of America” may not have changed much in absorbtive Western capitalism, but it moved the world elsewhere. (Who can remember the absurdity — yet still profound in its significance of soft power — of Boris Yeltsin standing atop a tank in 1991 reading a statement of support from Mick Jagger to the crowd? Or the incredible fact that when we were about 10 rows back in the Billy Joel Moscow show in the 1980s the Russians actually treated him as a bona fide rock star? The most amusing memory was standing in a sea of people at a Russian air field in 1991 for the ‘Monsters of Rock’ tour and watching all these young Sovs hoisting confederate flags obtained by God-doesn’t-want-to-know-how).


W remain at the mercy of CNNMSNBCFOX who need a horse race: for ratings, for narrative, and to employ promo and graphics departments. HRC generates such hostility there for many reason, not the least is that all are bored — too many books, too little new to talk about.

But make no mistake: given the Warlord regime’s relentless assault on the Republic and the international order, we need more than a State Senator with 2 years in the Senate riffing Karl Rove poorly. Obama, in our opinion, simply is too weak, too superficial, and all too inexperienced for our historical moment.

So we politely say “Screw AUDACITY”. Cheney’s left pinky showed more audacity than Obama can ever conceive. No matter how often he name checks Beyonce to adoring, guilt-ridden 50 year old white journalists. If Obama won’t go get some real executive, political knife fighting and managerial experience, then let’s dump into Gore Corp. somewhere. He’d look ok in green. We’d love to see an African American president unite and heal this country. Unfortunately, it won’t be him.


Oh, and Senator? We like contemporary pop/urban music as much as anyone. Especially if trapped in a stalled Beltway parking lot. But as our regulars know, we really are partial to the volume, melodic chaos and composition of the Boomer’s best Music. (One of our favorite clips). Check in with us in 4 our 8 years when you have the battle scars to show you can be taken seriously. We promise a fresh look then.


  1. Comment says

    We think Warner would have not made it – He was an on-paper excellent candidate – There was a lengthy profile of him in the Times Mag a while back that we read and thought troubling because they seemed to be setting Warner up to be like another Bill Bradley – lots of good media mentions, Tweety approval, etc – But ready to be taken apart in the general election because he did not have an authentic base of support to fall back on.
    His stump speech sounded ok the first time we heard it – but as time wore on his “I succeed because I failed” theme wore a bit thin. You have to be a folk hero like RWR to carry that kind of schtick all the way.
    re Kerry & Bush – As problematic as Kerry was, there was a moment when he almost moved solidly ahead in the election – Shortly after that first debate – He crushed Bush in that debate and his did so with out his bad side showing so the Media could not replay (as they did with Gore) endless clips to change peoples minds who won. New Yorker is not unbiased, but they were correct writing:

    “The President held his head slightly cocked and low to his shoulders, and his expressions kept shifting, in increments of wincing aggravation—lips drawn tight and downward, nostrils flaring and flattening, eyebrows wriggling—through a range of attitudes: impatience, boredom, indignation, sourness, imperiousness, contempt. This unhappy twitchiness persisted through the evening … Bush, even when he had the floor, grimaced as he spoke, except on several occasions when he lost his way and a look of total erasure came over him, a blank, stricken stare for which the French, alas, have the most apt expression: like a cow watching a train go by. – You didn’t need to be rooting for Bush to be distressed by the spectacle of his discombobulation. You needed only to care for the Republic. … Bush is ferociously insulated from exposure to opinions that deviate from the party line. He does not like to be questioned and has little use for argument. Logic has never been his strong suit; in justifying his policies and actions, he prefers stonewalling (admit no error, and ignore or deny bad news) and tautology (I do what’s right because it’s right, and it’s right because I do it)…. he appeared to experience the debate as an insult. At times he sulked, at times he winced,…,” Bush protested. “I decided to go there myself.” And, a bit later, “Of course I know Osama bin Laden attacked us. I know that.” …”

  2. Dr.LeoStrauss says

    Dear Tbilisi, from our sister bunker in Narikala, it is hard to gauge. We only know a few people who are close M. Warner and have not posed the question directly.

    Our sense at the time? He was not scared off per se (he had enough financial firepower available and on call). Rather, he did a recon of the gound around the States, checked in with the netroots, etc. and discovered he could not face 2 years of mindless drivel, bad chicken lunches potpies and dinners. Proverbial fire in the belly wasn’t there.

    Perhaps another blog or someone more wired in with the M. Warner people could provide a more accurate and substantive answer. He’d make an outstanding Senator.

  3. Tbilisi says

    Good Doctor, Tell me why did Mark Warner not run?

    From my vantage from Saakashvili’s GWU dorm room, he seemed to be the only person capable of a) winning, b) restoring republican institutions to this once-and-hopefully-future great liberal democratic experiment, and c) both comprehending and succeeding in the big bad mostly non-American world as it actually exists.

    To sum up, of which dynastic juggernaut exactly was he scared?

  4. A Random Quote says

    Espionage Magazine: You mention in your book that as part of your duties as head of SAVAK operations in this country, you also served as Liaison with the CIA and the FBI. And as I understand it, you became an asset for the CIA, correct?

    Mansur Rafizadeh: Yes, but let me explain. At first, I thought the CIA officers were capable and meant well, but they didn’t seem to know what was going on in Iran. Therefore, I decided to enlighten them. My motive was simple: I felt, very early, that the Shah was a disaster for Iran, and that after his inevitable fall, it was important to create a reform government to eliminate abuses. And the United States must understand these changes. Unfortunately, I discovered that most of the CIA officers I dealt with were not capable. They did not know their task: I would find that the CIA men assigned to work on Iranian matters did not know the culture of Iran, did not know the history, did not seem to know much of anything. You know, in the past 20 years, I met only one CIA man involved with Iran who actually spoke broken Farsi? It was very depressing.

    ~September 1987

  5. Anon says

    Incidentally – elsewhere in the Times – There is an article about Putin awarding one of the less well known atom spies a posthumour Hero of Russian Federation medal. That’s Putin. Pat’s pal. But Pat wouldn’t fault him

  6. Dr Leo Strauss says

    Russian veterans in December 1941 snow drifts repeatedly reported seeing Stalin as real apparition leading the charge against AGC down across the lines. Vodka, fear, cold, primitive superstition and indoctrination.

    The Colbert Nation can’t claim the same inebriation, fear or cold.

  7. Anon says

    re Daily Show – Normally we don’t like to criticise the writers for good shows – Or even bad ones. It’s a tough job. Also sometimes we are truly surprised to find things that we found to be unfunny are funny in the eyes of others. That being said , we read this essay by a striking Daily Show writer and we could not help but think Mark Steyn could use it to make some snarky point in the WSJ:

  8. Comment says

    When we were talking about his routine becoming funny after the fact – we meant that mainstream consensus people who saw it at the time and deemed it unfunny, have since described as funny. They remember not what they saw or heard, but a false memory, proceeding from heat oppressed brains.We can’t think of examples right now – but it will come to us.
    Your point about sympathy for Dubya is true – Indeed, that was frustrating and if we had to guess we’d say Colbert was concerned about that at the time, as he thought he was bombing – Indeed, we doubt that he thought he did well himself and was somewhat surprised by the the ability of fans to create an echo chamber of sorts.

  9. Comment says

    We don’t disagree with you as much as it may seem. We know exactly what you’re talking about and we do think that Lewis Black would have been perfect. Indeed, Colbert was extremely bad with Russert – But it’s hard to blame him because Russert is a very unfunny person who doesn’t really know it – Those people are the opposite of a contageous laughing audience.
    We didn’t like Colbert’s show that much at first – though we were/are big fans of Stewart – We thought that Colbert was good on the Daily Show like Carrel – But both have done well since. Colbert show was starting to get good right around that time and it has generally improved since then. Almost half of his episodes ar funny – And that’s a big compliment – Also, his “Word” commentaries are getting better.

  10. Dr Leo Strauss says

    Look, Colbert was deemed ‘funny’ by those who already drank the Oppositionist Kool Aid. Make no mistake. We like the show, we tried the premise here in fact — that was the essence of the main site back in 2004ish — but we couldn’t ‘stay in character’ and know full well the discipline and creativity required. And as mentioned, an old friend is senior at Daily Show. All of which is to say we WANTED him to succeed.

    We would rather have seen Lewis Black do it. Just because 1,342 commenters at XYZ progressive sites say Colbert was brilliant does not make it so. In fact, Colbert backfired in creating sympathy for the Warlord as bizarre as that seems. The insight into Cohen is not all the surprising as he has been in the tank for this regime in many blatant and poorly obscured ways until it became glaringly obvious in 2006 he had to eject or face total embarrassment.

    YMMV. It’s one thing for us here to be aware of the hyper-reality narrative unfolding. It’s another for us to be swayed by those succumbing to it. We’re all in this together.

  11. Comment says

    If Colbert’s speech did not become funny – it did make Richard Cohen attack him for being a bully to the most powerful man in the world – This was a stunning expression of consensus mindset and Colbert deserves credit for precipitating and revealing – This was the event-aspect. Comment would have written a different comedy routine and we would have worked for authentic in-the-room laughs. Some say that could not have been done – the room dynamics were anti-comedy. We did dislike very much that dumb video with that overrated Helen Thomas. That was a buzzkill.
    Nancy Giles, hot and bothered – Ohhhhhhh baby!

  12. Comment says

    re The Real Thing (Warlord as precursor) – That may be. But is not true that many of the smarter ideologues think that Hillary, more than Obama, will precipitate the necessary crisis?
    They think HRC will ratify the war in an indirect way, while maintaining the glue of rightist venom –
    It may be the opposite – HRC may diffuse fears and hate by being her normal self, instead of being a nightmare succubus of their nightmares

  13. Comment says

    We did enjoy that authentic tidbit of McCain’s mom spilling the beans on her anti Mormon sentiment – Ofcourse Tweety is wrong about it – People would be wise to play up McCain’s Mom’s comment. Nixon would have

  14. Comment says

    Rudy has other political advantages (Comment does not support him ) – He has all the smartest neocons working for him. They win – Powell loses – It’s that simple Who do you think it smarter – Dan Pipes or Juan Cole? There are a lot of liberals we know that think pointing things out like this is to be pro Rudy. Quite the contrary – Just the opposite.

  15. Dr Leo Strauss says

    We thought and think Colbert was not funny or even entertaining at the Dinner. Whatever the masses want to say. We told Dems Kerry would be the worst candidate in 2004 because of the feral rage of betrayal he would summon up and clueless Dems said “but he won medals”. The mass consensus is usually wrong. It will be disasterously so with Obama, who by his failure in office will open the door for The Real Thing (with Warlord as mere precursor).

  16. Comment says

    Tweety — “lot of Bobby, lot of Jack, a lot of Martin Luther King” – talking about Obama’s JJ speech. LOL – Coulter could have a lot of fun with that take.
    Obama has been trying to stake a claim that he is moving beyond the 60s and then Tweety throws him right back there in the guise of praise. Maybe when Bobby was wiretapping MLK , he overheard MLK say “Mass demonstrations have to be replaced with aggressive personal diplomacy. I have instructed by Chief of Staff to meet with Bull Conner’s people at a place of their chosing.”
    The Bobby turned to Jack and said. “Jaaaaaack, J.Edgar has work cut out for him. Martin is getting together with Bull!”

  17. Comment says

    Tweety’s “power rankings” are a scam – full of GE synergistic BS references to SNL and MTP etc – Obama will regret embracing what will turn out to be a pro Rudy vehicle.
    Let’s not kid ourselves Doc – This is all hot air – Obama is not going to win. HRC will win — She will face Rudy and the winner will probably by Rudy unless HRC can force penalty points via tactics
    The anti Bush poll numbers and the two losing wars paradoxically help Rudy – The psychic battlespace in the memespere has lots of reactionary sentiment waiting to be catalyzed and mobilized.

  18. Comment says

    Comment admits that our political instincts are often off – so we were taken by surprise that the media seemed to declare Obama’s JJ speech a triumph – We have not misjudged a speech reaction so much since the Colbert speech at that dinner a while back.
    Initially, like Stiftung, we were disappointed in Colbert’s performance – but we held out the possibility that we missed something since we’re big fans of Steve.
    But around night that we were talking to someone who said something to effect: “Comment, you just don’t ‘Get It’ – Colbert was brilliant, absolutely brilliant – He was giving a classic Andy Kaufman style mock performance – Not a comic routine, but a comic event! Comment, You have to stop thinking like Tom Wolfe and start thinking like Hunter Thompson – stop witnessing crazy, start thinking crazy. Then you’re ‘Get’ why Colbert was brilliant.”
    Now – even though this was a lot of garbage coming from a friend – We tried to grok it – Then we noted that it became objectively true – Truth, or the simulacrum of it – has become the winning narrative – Truthiness indeed. Colbert’s speech was considerd boffo by the opposition (some pretended) en masse (except us) and over time the mainstream consensus embraced it, forgetting they hated it – just like they forgot (with some help from Tweety et al) that Gore totally destroye Gee Dubs in the first debate.
    Anyway – we thought (we supported Obama from the beginning because he opposed the war and we did not think Richardson could win) – So we thought at JJ Obama gave an boring cliched Ok speech – But one that had so many flaws that we , just for a minute, wished we were a Rudy speechwriter, just to mock them in public – Esp when he said he came out against slogans , but in the form of a slogan – Many others.
    HRC supposedly bombed – but we thought she mildly won on TV – But it turns out that we were wrong.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


CommentLuv badge