I am really sick and tired of people having to go out of their way to defend Obama. It is absolutely not true that he is a Whiny Ass Titty Baby (WATB). Yet day after day, it has become necessary for his supporters, those dedicated zealots for Change! (trademarked and patent pending, Obama campaign) to hunt down and destroy any diary or comment that dares to criticize him.
These poor people must be exhausted. Little did they know that their incomparable, peerless candidate would be the subject of so much comparison or be subjected to the meritless bragging of other candidates. No one could have predicted it during a primary election season.
Why did Obama even trust his opponents to play fairly? He has too much faith in his fellow human beings. Surely his goodness and mercy will follow them all the days of their lives. So, why are they mercilessly attacking him?!
For instance, just this afternoon, he is on record, justifiably enraged, that the Clinton and Edwards campaigns would be taking money from *Special Interests* in order to run phone banks and send mailers gently chiding his health care proposal. We don't know why Emily's list, AFSCME and the American Federation of Teachers are suddenly Special Interests. We thought they were on our side. But they have shown their true stripes. They are sworn enemies of Obama.
Some say that the term Special Interest is a dog whistle term that really means UNIONS. But I know that's not true because if Mr. Obama were dissing unions, they wouldn't be so enthusiastic to work for him next year if he is the nominee. He is perspicacious enough to realize that, surely.
No, when Obama says Special Interests he really means corporate lobbying firms who we all hate with a fevered passion unequalled since our feelings about J.R. Ewing. (To the twenty somethings- wiki it) He never meant for you to confuse Special Interests with unions because that would be mean and manipulative and underhanded. It smacks of negative affect** campaign techniques and that would just be wrong.
(Disclaimer: The use of the word "smacks" in the sentence above was not intended to make reference to you-know-what. The same goes for the words crack, speed, crystal, pot and snow. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.)
It is crystal clear that our Obama remain unbesmirched by any soil that might have unintentionally splashed up from the mudfest the other candidates are engaged in. Every perceived insult, even if imagined, must be met with great speed by the descent of thousands of shrieking supporters, throwing a tantrum on his behalf.
Civility is de rigeur for the other candidates. They must address him politely and generously. Do not crack jokes or make fun of him. If you can't say anything nice about Obama, say nothing at all. Do not attempt to compare yourself and for God's sakes, don't try to make you or your pot of policies look good.
For if you do, you too might be forced to apologize like Bob Kerrey did yesterday. Apologies like this one have been coming down on Obama like snow. Kerrey's apology was not announced with great fanfare by Mr. Obama's campaign. Well, he is modest and probably didn't want to embarrass the man any further. So, I will post it below for your perusal.
Dear Barack,
I want to sincerely apologize for the remarks I made on Sunday in Council Bluffs, Iowa, after an event at which I endorsed Senator Hillary Clinton’s Presidential candidacy. I answered a question about your qualifications to be President in a way that has been interpreted as a backhanded insult of you. I assure you I meant to do just the opposite.
After you and I met during your primary campaign for the Senate, I wrote a public letter in which I said that that you were among the two or three most talented people I have ever met in politics. Nothing in your performance in the Senate or your campaign for the Presidency has altered that view.
The question I was asked in Iowa on Sunday was something like this: "Senator Kerrey, you ran for President in your first term in the Senate. If you were qualified, why isn’t Senator Obama?" With the benefit of my computer’s capacity to make certain that my words reflect my belief let me answer that question in this letter which you are free to use anyway you choose.
You are exceptionally qualified by experience and judgment to be President of the United States. I do not doubt that you would use the power of the Presidency to bring peace and prosperity to as many people as possible on our fragile planet. You inspire my highest hopes for that office’s potential: That it be used as a force for good in America and the world.
It is your capacity to inspire hope that is your greatest God given talent. Without spending a dime of tax payer’s money or changing a single law your presence in the Oval Office will send a clear and compelling message to four groups of people who will be altered for good as a consequence. That was what I was trying to say on Sunday and what I hope I said more clearly in this letter.
Again, I am sorry for the insult and wish you the best on January 3 and beyond.
Merry Christmas to you and your family.
Respectfully yours,
Bob Kerrey
Kerrey was unbelievably gracious in his apology. He realizes how exceptional Mr. Obama is. And he knows that hope will be very important if Obama wins the WH. Who wouldn't be crowing in triumph after having bagged Kerrey into prostrating himself? I am in awe of Obama's campaign's ability to keep this apology so low Key.
It just goes to show that Obama is not a WATB. And anyone who says he is, is itchin' for a fight.
Note to Hillary: There's nothin voters hate more than getting a pre-recorded phone call asking for their vote. Even Special Interests can not compete for that special level of hell reserved for the robocall.
Don't do it. Resist the urge. In Iowa, it's much better for Bill to call some people personally and chat with them for awhile. You know how he is, always ready to shoot-the-breeze. Use him, not the auto-dialer. And if Mark Penn tells you something different, give him a wedgie and a dope slap.
** Negative Affect as described by Kathleen Hall Jamieson on Bill Moyers Journal, Dec. 7, 2007.:
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: There's also, however, another way to read this piece. What is Hillary Clinton actually doing? Frightening Reagan conservatives a whole lot. One of the things I think that happens with many of these visual depictions is that the people who are producing them are trying to attach what scholars call negative affect to Hillary Clinton. And I know that's an odd concept for non-academics.
BILL MOYERS: Negative?
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: Affect. To the extent that you have negative feelings, have basic affect when you see something. If I can attach that to something, I can make you feel uneasy about it. I can increase the likelihood that you're going to vote against Hillary Clinton. So we know, for example, that if I show you a picture of someone who's smiling and feels comfortable and it's a pleasant video, that's that Reagan-
BILL MOYERS: Right.
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: You think more positively of the person, even if you don't know who the person is. Then I show you a scary picture, an off-putting picture. You react negatively. You respond negatively. I can increase the likelihood that you'll say you'll vote against that person even if you know nothing about them.
So some of this is what we used to call visual vilification. But it's also attaching an emotional response to the picture to say feel uneasy, feel uncomfortable. And as a result, keep that emotional tag tied as you hear her explaining positions on issue. Keep that discomfort. Hold onto it till you go into the voting booth. Stay with that comfortable issue and comfortable image of Ronald Reagan.