Recent events surrounding some of Sen. Obama's advisors, especially Greg Craig, have prompted many of us to take a closer look into what substance (if any) there might be to Obama's pronouncements about his 'transformational' foreign policy initiatives. First, we should take a look at the advisors he listens to:
Anthony Lake | Susan Rice | Denis McDonough | John Brennan | Gregory Craig | Richard Danzig | Maj. Gen. J. Scott Gration | Ben Rhodes | Gayle Smith | Amb. Jeffrey Bader | Mark Brzezinski | Zbigniew Brzezinski | Joesph Cirincione | Richard Clarke | Roger Cressey | Ivo Daalder | Philip Gordon | Lee Hamilton | Lawrence Korb | Daniel Kutzer | James Ludes Robert Malley | Patrick Murphy | Samantha Power | Bruce Reidel | Sarah Sewell | Daniel Shapiro | Ted Sorenson | Mona Sutphen
Quite a list, isn't it? The Obama Power Foreign Policy Team - Ready to Step Up to the Plate and Take Charge, on Day Two, presumably. Now let's separate the wheat from the chaff. The important players are here with a thumbnail portrait of their several POVs:
Tony Lake and Susan Rice are veterans of Bill Clinton's administration, known for their leftward leanings in debates.
Sarah Sewell helped write Gen. Petraeus' new counterinsurgency field manual.
Samantha "Hillary is a monster" Power is the firebrand Irish journalist who has made a name for herself attempting to 'revolutionize US foreign policy.
Gregory Craig is a top gunslinger, 'trial' lawyer who has defended, among others, Bill Clinton in the Impeachment trial in the US Senate, John Hinckley (Reagan would-be assassin), Elian Gonzalez (immigration dust-up that tanked Gore in Florida), Kofi Annan (UN corruption charges) and last but not least, notorious alleged murderer of US soldiers in Panama, Pedro Pinzon.
Richard Clarke is well known as the indefatigable Cassandra of the intelligence community
Robert Malley is a notorious Palestinian supporter whose middle east think tank: The International Crisis Group is dedicated to presenting the arab-african viewpoint on the conflict, or more accurately the anti-Israel viewpoint.
Zbigniew Brzezinski is a legendary cold warrior whose roots in opposition to the Soviet empire are well documented.
The question is: What do these people have in common? How does it appear to affect Sen. Obama? and... who is running the puppet show here?
Brzezinski, of course, is the Grand Old Man of this group, as National Security Advisor to Jimmy Carter, he has the oldest and closest experience of how to wield power in the real world, but his focus (not unlike Condi Rice) is purely on the battle of the superpowers, the adversary for him was, is and always will be: Russia. Not that he doesn't understand that there is a 'middle-east', it's just not important.
Bob Malley is the known Palestinian POV for this group, while they all lean in the anti-Israeli direction, Malley is more of the "From the River to the Sea" radical. He argues for including Hamas and Hezbollah in whatever talks there are despite their oft-stated desire to drive the jews into the sea.
Dick Ckarke I would view as a resource for intelligence and process. I spoke with him when he was on a Homeland Security tour, several years ago, talking to the technology crowd on cyber security risks. He struck me as a careful thinker, not given to speculation or magical thinking of any sort.
The coterie of Lake, Rice Sewell and Power are probably the inner group most likely to have Obama's ear on a regular basis. This is not to say that others (Brzezinski, for example) do not have agendas of their own but, given the tone an tenor of Obama's few statements about foreign policy, this group seems to hold sway at the moment.
The general direction of Obama's Foreign Policy (OFP) is that of reaction to the perceived oppression of the Palestinians by the state of Israel. In the simplistic world of Obama-think there is no thread through the maze, there is no maze, in fact. Complex issues of peoples, rights and history assume a crystal-like clarity once you pare away the nuance and identify a victim and an oppressor.
It is the lack of historical knowledge that cripples the OFP. Certainly, the OFP is middle-east centric, despite the presence of Brzezinski, there is almost no acknowledgment of Russia's new found power and wealth, of China's continued surge in Asia, of the emergence of Venezuela and Brazil as new powers, nor the far-reaching ambitions of Iran in the Gulf region - other than their appearance as an opponent of Israel and supporter of Hezbollah.
Indeed, the entire OFP seems to be a rather simple-minded reaction to Bush administration policies: whatever they did, we'll do the opposite. They went to war, so we'll stop fighting - anyone. They won't talk to their adversaries, so we will - with no preparation. They supported Israel, so we'll support Hamas and Hezbollah. These are the policies of children. There is no grasp of the inherent complexities of dealing with real people and their very real agendas. Simply stating that "we'll all sit down around a table and work things out" is delusional nonsense. It also exposes naiveté of a quite dangerous sort: assuming that those people across the table think and speak in the same metaphorical universe as you is an invitation to disaster in negotiation. The very thought of a President Obama sitting down with the various middle east constituencies, who have been dealing in the 'Souk' for four thousand years and expecting to connect because of his schoolboy days in Indonesia, is ludicrous. The Arabs will have him for breakfast ...and then the Chinese will have him for lunch.
Obama's limited and wrong-headed knowledge of geography, ethnology and politics is frightening to contemplate. To aver that the Afghans are lacking Arab translators isn't a simple misstatement, it is a tacit confession that he lacks any understanding whatsoever of the actual situation on the ground in that part of the world. Afghans, Iranians, Iraqis - whatthehell they all look alike.
Here's the point: it isn't enough to rope in some old guard cold warriors, hysterical firebrands, high powered, guns-for-hire lawyers and radical ideologues. Mushing them together doesn't get you a viable worldview, a coherent strategy or a workable foreign policy. You, the leader, must have a deep and strong understanding of how the world works, who has a bone in which fight, what they might be willing to give up to get what they can live with. This doesn't come from pre-digested think tank scenarios, cooked up by a random gathering of advisors.
Rather it comes from doing the cold dreary work of diplomacy, day after day, year after year. That way you gain -dare I say it? - the experience to understand both what you're hearing ...and not hearing; to be able to read between the lines; to detect and respond to a nuanced exchange of views. Working with community organizers on South Side Chicago just doesn't cut it.
America needs to be able to talk to its adversaries and its friends, we need to be able to tell the difference. We have suffered a drastic drop in global esteem not because we are powerful - we are, not because we are arrogant - and we are that, too - but because we have been stupid for the last seven years and everyone in the world knows it. We cannot afford to be stupid anymore, we cannot afford child-like naiveté, we cannot afford to abandon old allies or to credulously acquire new ones. The Obama Foreign Policy offers all these flaws and more: Obama's Foreign Policy offers up America to shame and humiliation, to retribution and retaliation. Obama offers to make America the chamberpot for all the ills, real or imagined, of every injured party, past or present, anywhere in the world. Simply put, Obama's Foreign Policy can be summed up in two words: America Last.
Dear Hillary... and Bill:
I have written to you before and I post regularly on my journal: The Heraclitan Fire and at No Quarter
It seems to me that the fix is in, I think that Mr. Obama has already been chosen by the Democratic party 'elders' as their nominee. You know that this will be a disaster for the Democrats in November and will likely lead to John McCain's election.
I know you both are lifelong Democrats and I know your first instinct is to help the Democrats , no matter how badly you have been abused. I am writing to you to ask you to consider another option.
The Democratic spinelessness and cowardice in regards to the Iraq war is spectacularly evident and Democrats are disgusted by the performance of Pelosi & Co. From what I am seeing and hearing there is a tremendous groundswell for creating a third party in this country. The time is right and you two are the perfect political team to do this.
I know you are hesitant about abandoning the Democrats but consider that they have been co-opted by Bill Ayers’ and Barack Obama’s New Bolshevik cadres. In fact there is no Democratic party any longer. What is left is a cult very similar to the cults that followed Hitler, Lenin and Mao.
Perhaps that seems a bit too far, yet we have all seen the skillful use of propaganda to camouflage lies, the selection of a scapegoat to blame all failures on, the incantations to belief that permeates the Obama ‘movement’ [sic].
The combination of power starved, ineffectual party ‘leaders’ – who have all envied your actual accomplishments, while they were never able to do anything; and the hijacking of the caucuses, the party apparatus and the threats and intimidation of party delegates; should all be indicators that something very, very bad is going on.
Indeed, I submit to you that the die is cast: the so-called Democratic party has been taken over by a group of far leftist/fascist radicals who are determined to foist their version of ‘democracy’ on the entire country.
You may think that I am being paranoid – and perhaps I am, nevertheless what is true is that the Democratic party no longer has a place for anyone named “Clinton”.
However, we who understand that, in the long run, substance trumps style; we who have waited – forever – it seems, for a candidate/party/zeitgeist that truly represents our fervent dreams. For us now is the moment, now is the time to rise up and declare ourselves, now is the point in the space-time continuum when we can grab hold of Archimedes' lever and move the earth.
I would say that this is a “once in a generation opportunity” but it is not, this chance only comes along once in a hundred years or more.
Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton – you have the intelligence, you have the experience, you have the political knowledge, you have the influence, you have the organization and you have the will of the people.
I know it will be hard, I know it will take time you could be using for your own private lives, I know it will take treasure and dedication and fierce resolve… I know it will take much, much more than you ever expected to be asked for… but, nevertheless, I am asking – and millions of Americans are asking: Take us away from these false ‘democrats’ help us create, organize and grow a new, truly, democratic party. A party for people with brains and guts and sense – a party for Americans not fanatics, for Americans not bigots, for Americans not cowards.
We’re ready – we’re more than ready, only say the word and we are there.
Craig Della Penna
I was recently put in touch with John Kusumi China Support Net by the good folks at, No Quarter. John is working hard to support freedom and democracy in China (and I urge everyone who reads this to support him). John had read some of my writings and was interested in my reaction to his writings on the subject. This is my response.
Disclaimer: The following are my thoughts, speculations and opinions; based upon many and varied readings and research over a long period of time. I do not claim to speak for anyone else but I do claim that these writings represent a valid position in today’s world. It is possible that some of these writings may be in error – if so, I am open to correction, but absent proof of error, I am willing to debate and defend my positions vigorously.
A Bit of History
In order to think cogently about China, you have to know a little of her history. That's not to say that we need to start with the Five Immortal Emperors and the Monkey King or dally with Genghis Khan or with the Ming Dynasty. However the ancient history of China shows a repeating story of resistance, invasion, conquest and absorption. The alien enemy, the plundering hordes, the invading savages conquer all and reap the reward of their struggle – the Dragon Throne – and one by one, they all become seduced and absorbed into the ongoing dream of the Middle Kingdom (Zhongguo – the Chinese name for China)…
Why does this pattern repeat over and over again across the millennia? Is it perhaps a reflection of the process we have seen in western civilization (or are we the reflection?) If so, what makes the outcome different from ours? It is not enough to cite the rise of science in the west nor to credit the difference to the rise of the Athens and democratic sensibility. Something more elemental was at work in the east – Taoism and Confucius.
The Tao of Confucius
OK, to begin with, this discussion must be a simplified, truncated, even bowdlerized version of some of the most extremely complex thought systems ever dreamed up by man (or Zhuangzi) – I apologize beforehand for this short treatment and I urge anyone who is reading this to explore these philosophies further – you will be rewarded. In addition, we are here attempting to express the dreams and desires of one of the most sophisticated societies ever developed, with a people who were used to a level of nuanced thought unfathomable by our ‘frontal assault’ approach to life in the west (see Tang and Song Dynasty poetry). To start…
Taoism is and was a system of philosophy that encourages a serene and accepting approach to the world and its travails, similar in some ways to the Stoics in the west. But Taoism prefers to think in terms of harmony with the world around one emphasizing compassion, moderation and humility in everyday actions. This philosophy permeated all Chinese life in the various empires, and, along with Confucianism, made a very curious mixture.
Confucius was a scholar, minor court functionary and philosopher who lived about 2,500 years ago during the Zhou dynasty. His works on the moral responsibility of the ruler to the ruled, and the obligation of the citizen to improve themselves, morally, by dint of constant self-improvement and the development of superior judgment.
By contrast, in the west, at this time, Thales was ordering the world by means of natural, replicable explanations rather than relying on supernatural intercession; Pericles, Socrates and Aristotle were not yet born.
Confucianism has been called, erroneously, in the west, the foundation of bureaucracy – that honor, I believe belongs more properly to Hammurabi. Nevertheless, there was a strange and unfortunate affect when Taoism and Confucianism were combined in the Middle Kingdom.
The problem arose from the combination of a strict hierarchical government form, with the military power to back it up, and the introduction of Taoist passivity and Confucian respect for authority and moral value. The royal class was able to make a distinction between themselves and the lower levels of society. The essentially feudal nature of politico/economics then prevalent in China en toto meant that a strong, secure, stable, ossified culture extended for over a thousand years. Even several invasions were not able to subvert this monolithic system – the invaders were accepted, beguiled, seduced and… absorbed. But China did not change.
The Oppression of the West and the Opium Wars
The legendary Chinese dynasties of Han, Tang and Song were succeeded by the Mongol and Manchu invasions – which were subsumed into the Yuan and Qing dynasties. The Qing lasted until 1912 but now without serious civil strife. The advent of the western powers in the 19th century coincided with the outbreak of various insurrections and served to weaken central authority. This, along with the British and American policies of encouraging opium addiction (and thus the very lucrative opium trade) among the Chinese led to the aptly-named Opium Wars, which China lost. Beachheads and trade concessions were demanded by the victors and accede to by the Dowager Empress (who had little choice in the matter). Even the popular uprising called the Boxer Rebellion failed to do anything but further weaken the Dragon Throne.
The Kuomintang, the CPC and WWII
Finally, in 1913 the Nationalist Party (Kuomintang) led by the legendary Sun Yat-sen and his protégé, Chiang Kai-shek took control and attempted to establish a representative (though only one party rule) Chinese government. There were hindered by the activities of the powerful groups of warlords who had accrued great power over the long decline of the empire and the various internecine wars. They were also openly opposed by the Chinese Communist Party (CPC) led by the firebrand Mao Zedong.
During WWII, both the Kuomintang and the CPC fought together against the Japanese Empire. Hatred of the Japanese trumped their rivalry for the time being (see the Rape of Nanking, for an example of why). But as soon as that war was over, the battle for power began in earnest. The Kuomintang appealed to the nationalist sentiment among the Chinese people but the same old ruling elite were the leaders. The CPC promised the peasants power over their own lives (falsely of course) and a new way of distributing the wealth – the great communist mantra: “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” – a phrase so very useful when convincing the downtrodden to hand over control of their lives to you.
Mao on the Dragon Throne
Eventually, four years later. Mao and the CPC prevailed and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) was born. The Kuomintang was forced off the mainland to Formosa (Taiwan) where they have remained in noisy exile ever since. This was not without cost, however, the final slaughterhouse bill for Mao Zedong, including the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution (about which the less said the better) was close to 100 million lives. This makes Mao Zedong the greatest mass murderer in history, easily eclipsing the second place (Stalin at 50 million) and third place (Hitler at a paltry 30 million) contenders. No one else even comes close to these three beauties.
The nature of Mao (“Political power comes from the barrel of a gun.”) Zedong predicted the nature of the so-called Chinese Communist Party. There was no communism at all and functionally it was not a party but a means to exercise control. It was, however, very Chinese, in fact, it was almost indistinguishable from the previous 2,500 years of homegrown Chinese political structure: it was an empire and Mao was on the Dragon Throne.
Deng and the Counter Revolution
Mao had a problem, a very big problem. China was very obviously falling behind the rest of the world in about every quantifiable way. Mao was far too steeped in his ideology (see the Cultural Revolution) and was incapable of leveraging the country into another, more profitable path. His death in 1976 was a relief to the politburo who had been chafing to get some reforms underway. Deng Xiaoping rose to power (after an attempt by the Gang of Four – including Mao’s wife – to grab power). Deng was a canny politician. He saw what democracy was like in the west, and he didn’t much like it. He also saw what capitalism was doing for the west, and he liked that very much. He also saw what we apparently don’t: that democracy and capitalism are not the same thing. Deng thought that if the Chinese people were given a shot at western-style capitalism so they could become rich, they wouldn’t much give a damn about political or personal freedom (they’d never had it so they wouldn’t miss it). So Deng pushed the idea of opening up the Chinese system to allow people to ‘own’ stuff. The Chinese, not being stupid, thought this was a great idea (after all if you have enough money you can buy a kind of freedom) and became capitalists with a vengeance. The Chinese economy took off like a rocket – and it’s still going strong.
Parts 2 & 3 to come...
I don't know if you are listening anymore but I have to try anyway:First, some background. I have been a lifelong Democrat and as such I can say that I have never been truly represented (I came to like Bill but I disagreed with a lot of his more conservative initiatives). Yet I have held on, hoping that, someday, the time/person would be in sync so we could do some good in our country, in the world. As you can imagine, the last seven years have been painful for me (as were the Reagan years) but I have held on...This time, however, it's different. I have been appalled by the spinelessness of the Democrats in the 110th Congress and even more aghast at the candidacy of Senator Obama (see my journal at Not Now, Not Ever for a more detailed look at this). Contrary to popular opinion, I regard Senator Obama as a disaster waiting to happen. During this campaign I have argued vigorously for Hillary, written in journals and been published in the blogosphere (No Quarter), donated to her campaign and worked the phones here in Oregon. I have felt her pain and relished her victories. I have tremendous respect for her intelligence, dedication and perseverance but my patience with the Democrats is running out.So, here is my cri du coeur: Hillary - please do not, do not, do not have anything to do with an Obama ticket. Do not support Obama in the general election and certainly do not agree to be his VP. Frankly, as I say in my journal, I think the time is ripe for a third party and I think that you and Bill would be the perfect headliners for that effort. But Obama is another Bush-sized catastrophe for America - you know this, probably better than most, please do not be complicit in foisting this disaster on us.That said, I realize that Hillary is a lifelong Democrat and I expect that she will work her butt off for the Democrats even if they follow their current stupidity and nominate Obama. However, I have had it. If Obama is nominated I will not support him, even if Hillary is on the ticket with him. In addition, I will leave the Democratic Party and, if it looks like a close election in the Fall... I will hold my nose and vote for McCain. Well, you may say, what's one disaffected voter among millions? I urge you not to dismiss this lightly, I have come to find that there are many, many people who feel this way - we will not be coming together to get behind the party nominee, not this time.Sincerely,Craig Della Penna
The voting will soon be complete in both our states with what looks like quite different results. We, in Oregon, have fought a rearguard action, trying to counter the Obamaite propaganda and open minds to rational thought. The trends are going our way and with another week we might have pulled it out for Hillary but today is the day. Kentucky and Oregon have similar reputations as places on the frontier, with a fierce streak of contrariness and an ornery independence. Both our states have small african-american populations and roughly similar overall populations. So, why the big difference in the vote? I think the cause may be in the Willamette Valley corridor as a self-contained political entity. Oregon politics seems to have been a constant battle between the, mostly very conservative, loggers, farmers and ranchers in the south and east parts of Oregon vs the Portland-Eugene-Salem left-tilted political pole. I often say, half jokingly, that I live in the People's Republic of Portland - Hawthorne Soviet. The truth is that we live in an area of political passions and contradictions: who else would have both Ron Wyden and Gordon Smith as senators? Not to speak of Wayne Morse, Mark Hatfield and the utterly ridiculous Bob Packwood...The one good thing that will come out of the Oregon vote is that it spike's Obama's claim of white racism as an excuse for the trouncing he will get in Kentucky. If the whites are all against him - how come he won Oregon? That being said, I will regard the Kentucky vote not as a mirror of the past but as a harbinger of the future - where citizens have watched and listened to both the candidates and their various supporters; heard the bias of the press and recognized it for the sham it is; and come to their own conclusions about who is competent, capable and truly representative of the interests of the citizens of this country. Never give up.
When Obama first burst forth upon the political scene lo these many months ago, my gut reaction was: "he's not ready", now I have to add "and he never will be". The fact that people don't see his poisonous combination of arrogance and naiveté, intellectual ignorance and disinterest, his viciousness and contempt for others has been a consistent source of amazement for me. I can only explain it by referring to a religious/cult model. As I recently discussed in my journal on creationism (http://theheraclitanfire.blogspot.com/2007/12/some-thoughts-on-creationist-movement.html), Obama on the one hand is curiously apathetic about any actual prescriptions for the body politic. His position on any particular subject is not even apparent until someone with substance (Hillary, for example) publishes her position, then, within a few days, Obama comes out with a copy of that proposal (with a few insignificant changes) and trumpets it as a breakthrough, ‘transformational’ event.
And let me pause here for a moment of personal outrage: You do not get to name yourself 'transformational', to do so is the absolute height of hubris, the kind of stuff that prompts Zeus to turn you into a smoking crater in the ground. Long after you are gone from the stage, if you have actually done anything worthy of the term, some unbiased observer may call you 'transformational', that's the only way it happens, period.
Back to the subject: Obama as a cult figure is very interesting on a number of levels. First, his obvious proactive participation in the scheme, the cadenced, content-free, 'revival' speeches - all sound and fury signifying nothing. The constant self-reverent, self-referent, narcissistic, messianic comments. Originally, I thought this was some kind of self-mocking sardonic commentary - alas, I've come to see that Obama isn't capable of that level of introspection (or any level of introspection for that matter). His is a true pathology, much like that of George W. Bush, remarkably similar in fact. Obama and GWB also have much in common with other historical tyrants: complete and adamantine belief in their ability to surmount any obstacle, appease any enemy, attain any objective without the slightest knowledge of the subject and in the absence of a plan of any kind. This is magical thinking of the worst sort and always, always ends in catastrophe for any who are unlucky enough to be in their wake.
While Obama as a cult figure is bad enough, the worse problem is his followers. Who are these legions of hollow-eyed zombies? Do they issue from great vats in the slums of strategic cities? Has a viral plague been released on to the voter rolls? Are they actually the remnants of human beings? Sadly, they are (or were) people just like us, tired, yearning, despondent, fervid, frustrated – but in their desperate search for a way out of the awful moral devastation that is the administration of GWB and his associates, they had the misfortune to meet an appealing sociopath (aren’t they always appealing?) and they made a fateful decision: “Ah!”, they said to themselves, “ I don’t have to think anymore, Obama will think for me. What a relief!” and they laid down their most precious possession - their minds - before the Golden Calf.
So the hordes that support Obama have made their choice but we who are left behind can still muster a thought or two among us, we can look at these cadres and dissect their structure, examine their provenance and from this research, try to discern their true purpose.
The Obamaites can be broken down into their several constituencies:
The Useful Fools
These are the fading power brokers of the Democratic Party. The Kennedy, Kerry, Pelosi, Dean crowd, etc. First off, they hate the Clintons, not so much because of the (very successful) right wingnut 20-year propaganda onslaught (although that counts as well) but because they can't stand the fact that the Clintons actually managed to do something (prosperity, peace, balanced budget, reduction of national debt) in eight short, insanely contentious years, whereas in all that time and in all the rest of their careers, they have done, well - nothing. So they have invested in Obama because they think he is a sock puppet like GWB (but their very own this time) not knowing that sociopathy looks very much like malleability to the ignorant. Seeing the loss of power precipice ahead of them, they are clawing for one last lingering draught of the only thing that matters to them. Blinded by their lust, they don't even see how Obama sucks them up, one by one, drains them dry and throws them over the side (anyone remember Bill Richardson?) Their power fantasies will crash and burn, should Obama ascend the throne, because other, much more ruthless partisans (see The New Bolsheviks below) have plans of their own.
The Rabelaisians
These are the smallest and most innocuous group of Obamaites. Closer in spirit to the political satirists and theater groups before them: Voltaire, Swift, the Yippies, Dario Fo, they participate as anarchists and don't really care that Obama is essentially a hollow man. In fact, they prefer it. If Obama were to attain power, they can count on an even more intense level of governmental dissociative behavior and a more nihilistic and oppressed populace - fertile ground for machination by interested parties (see The New Bolsheviks below).
The True Believers
The most populous and the most easily manipulated are the True Believers. Their adulation has no basis in reason or responsibility, admits of no error, brooks no question and answers no call but from "The One". In a paroxysm of religious fervor, they have given over their essential humanity and their capability of choice to their master: Obama.
Demagogues like Obama just love these folks, they are the cannon fodder for the revolution, completely disposable and completely invisible. They have absolutely no influence on events and exist only to serve as 'the masses'. Obama's model for this group is the North Korean populace - they starve to death for the "Dear Leader" because they have ceased to think, ergo, they no longer deserve the honorific "human".
The New Bolsheviks
This is the last, most dangerous group of so-called Obamaites. In actuality they are not his followers, nor do they have any interest in him, his policies (whatever they might be) or his plans. This group has been looking for a way to take over a puissant political organization for decades - now they are on the verge of success. They are not easily identifiable by their persons (with the exception of those such as Bill Ayers) nor are they easily defined by their political philosophy since they don't really have one. There is something they want, however: power.
One only has to go over the Obama political operation to see the hand of V.I. Lenin in action: the mass busloads of professionals arriving at every caucus station, beefy 6'4" aggressive males and/or screeching Obamaharpies intimidating caucus-goers into either leaving or shutting up.
Another side note here: who was the idiot who thought that a caucus was a more democratic way to get out the vote? Completely unregulated, totally open to any and all kinds of intimidation and fundamentally divorced from the founding principle of American democracy: "one man, one vote".
Oh wait... it was Howard "IamanObamaman" Dean... nevermind...
And of course, there is the defining Obama political maneuver - a racist political campaign designed to stir up the african-american vote by accusing his opponents of racism - nice work in a strictly political sense, it worked brilliantly, Obama got every black voter in America to cast their vote for him (this is - by definition - racism) on the theory that Bill and Hillary Clinton were white racists. Karl Rove must be spinning in his grave, oh wait...
The capper of this strategy: ever since his first tiniest success (after Iowa) there has been the constant clarion call for Hillary to step as aside as the Anointed One approaches his coronation. Without rhyme or reason, against every principle of democratic process, understandable only in the context of the naked, mindless, lust for power.
Back to the New Bolsheviks. The crowning of Obama is actually a sideshow for the NBs. Their intent is to take over the Democratic party organization, remove anyone who is actually democratic (can't have that) and replace them with hard core ideologues (sound familiar? it's exactly what the Bushies did to the Republican party). Note the current edict to Obama donors: put all donations to the DNC through the Obama organization… can you spell co-opt? Next, on the assumption that they manage to bamboozle the American public into voting for another incompetent narcissist - apparently not too much of a stretch these days - they will sweep out the old fanatics and replace them with shiny, brand new fanatics.
Oh please, you say, these are Democrats and they will only help restore the halcyon days of true representation and concerted government action on behalf of all the people (... pause... wait for it... cue: hysterical laughter until sides hurt).
The problem with ideologues is that, left or right, red or blue, fascist or communist, in the end they are all the same because they are interested in one thing and one thing only: absolute control over - you.
They are not interested in your problems or how to solve them, they are not interested in your children or how to raise them, they are not interested in your health or your happiness in your safety or your aspirations or your dreams - they are not interested in doing anything for you. They are only interested in what you can do for them, today and tomorrow and ever and anon.
V.I. Lenin knew what he was doing in 1917, the Duma (Russian parliament) was fractured and in disarray, Kerensky was a weak leader, the country was struggling in an unpopular war and the populace was deeply dissatisfied (sound familiar). As the leader of the minority party in the opposition he was in a lousy position to exert any influence so he called his faction the Bolshevik faction (the majority faction ) even though it wasn't and by using party thugs to intimidate and suppress his enemies, as well as co-opting armed workers in several strategic factories, he took over the party apparatus and staged a coup on the government.
A similar coup is being attempted right here, right now. The New Bolsheviks have co-opted the caucuses and, by threat and intimidation, have sequestered the votes of millions of people they are not entitled to. They have rigged the Democratic party delegate process in a systematic manner to the point where, even in states where she has won the primary, Hillary has been denied proportional representation. Superdelegates have been threatened and intimidated and the Democratic party itself has been threatened with "blood in the streets" in Denver if they do not declare Obama the winner before the convention.
That last is, itself, very interesting: if no winner is declared and the candidates go to a vote, there will be no winner on the first vote (assuming the superdelegates split more or less evenly) this means that all delegates are then released from their commitment to a candidate. Democracy ensues! ...can't have that, can we?
The Gathering Storm
Several scenarios suggest themselves when reviewing the previous information. They all have one thing in common; the Democratic Party will not survive this election. I was stunned when I realized this, I had assumed that the Republican party was about to disintegrate into its natural constituencies (the Corporate Fascist Party, the Christian Theocratic Party and the Southern White Racist Party) but it now appears that the Democrats are going to beat them to it.
The Hillary Wins Scenario
If the Democratic party actually pulls its collective head out of its posterior and decides to try to win the general election, they will nominate Hillary. If Hillary wins the nomination, the Obamaites will run around in circles with their hair on fire and scream about how the coronation was stolen from them by the hated Clintonistas. They may bolt from the party as a faction, more likely they will try to damage the Democrats as much as possible to ‘prove’ their point that without “The One” the Democrats are lost. Certainly they will not vote for her in November. This is not quite the catastrophe that it may seem, the Obama-fanatics are neither as numerous as they might appear (remember all those cross-over Republicans and independents?) and frankly, I don’t have great confidence that they’ll show up in expected numbers come election day.
The ‘Anointed One’ Wins Scenario
If Clinton is denied the nomination by the New Bolsheviks with the support of the power-ghoul party secretariat, the Democrats can count on a huge proportion of the Clinton constituency turning their backs and exiting the party. I know that most of the professional political corps pooh-poohs this as fire-breathing partisan hype but I have witnessed a level of fury about this that is absolutely unprecedented in all my political experience. This is not hot-blooded, blowhard posturing, this is cold, hard, grim resolve – and I’m seeing it from all quarters – it’s very, very real. And it means that Obama doesn’t have a snowball’s chance of winning in the fall, the Republicans have not even begun to train their howitzers on him and he’s such an easy target: I whipped up a classic Republican commercial in about ten seconds. A simple static picture of Obama with Rev. Wright’s voice in the background screaming: “God damn America!” over and over and over…
The upshot is: no matter what course the Democratic party takes, the result will be an unbridgeable schism. Personally, I would hope and recommend that the Democrats try to win the Presidency this fall and nominate Hillary. In the best of all worlds I would hope for Obama to accept the VP spot on her ticket. It’s possible that after 8 years of watching how a pro does it, he might be capable of taking the reins himself – I doubt it, but I’ve been wrong before. I don’t think that will happen for a number of reasons, first, I don’t think that Hillary would want someone as VP whose only aim would be to do her as much damage as possible. Second, I’m pretty sure that Obama’s overweening pride would prevent him from taking second place to woman. Third, he really would be only a heartbeat away from the presidency – and that’s a scary thought.
The other variant scenario is that the Dems will force him to accept her as his VP. This would be great for him and pretty bad for the rest of us. First, if she, trooper that she is, pitches in wholeheartedly, the Dems just might squeak out a victory in the fall. This would present us with a dilemma: Obama would think this is great – he can go on eating waffles while someone who actually knows what she’s doing would do all the work… for which he could take all the credit, a perfect solution for him. We would know that the so-called Obama presidency would be yet another Obama scam-sham but we’d have Hillary there to do the work that desperately needs doing.
Frankly, in the event that he secures the nomination, I hope he refuses to accept her (I’m pretty sure he will refuse – that arrogance/pride thing again and besides, can you see Michelle bein’ down with that?).
So again, trooper that she is, Hillary will probably work her butt off trying to bring the Dems together and put The Anointed One in the White House… but, what if?...
The Crazy/Beautiful Scenario
OK, it gets a little ‘Area 51’ here so be warned. What if Hillary (and Bill) thought to themselves: “Why am I busting my ass for the Democrats? They’ve made it perfectly obvious that they hate my guts and resent everything I’ve done for the party for the past 30-odd years. We could have had a universal health plan in 1994 if the Democrats hadn’t voted against it… what the hell am I doing here?”
I’ve been saying for years that we need a viable third (and fourth and fifth) party. Ralph Nader wasn’t wrong when he said that the Republicans and the Democrats are almost indistinguishable (yeah, I know: he apparently couldn’t see the difference between the village idiot and the class valedictorian either). The wretched, pusillanimous, politically inept, spineless performance of Nancy “Impeachment is Off the Table” Pelosi and the rest of the contemptible, so-called Democratic ‘leadership’ just proves the point, the train has left the station and we, the people are not on it.
What if, in an act of staggering political courage and brilliance, Bill and Hillary formed the “Centerline Party” (just a suggestion)? Formed for people who are sick of the ideologues on both sides, who want practical solutions to real problems, who want corporations to live up to their responsibilities to the people who made them great and powerful, who believe that government can be a great agent for change which benefits us all, who know that we truly are all in this together.
We could probably get most of the moderate Republicans, y’know the old-time true conservatives who actually want to ‘conserve’ things, the vast majority of Democrats – let’s call them the ‘Big Dog’ Democrats – who want to use government the way it should be used, repair infrastructure, set realistic policies on the economy (such as raise CAFE standards), ecology (get off Oil and on to Hydrogen), conservation. Stop stupid wars before they begin and restore America’s original luster as the “City on the Hill”.
This is a unique opportunity: the most talented politicians of their generation with proven track records and substantial backing by the public, vast worldwide connections, experience and respect; who better to create a new national political organization that actually could be revolutionize, revitalize and re-form American politics for generations ahead?
Like I said, Area 51, but to quote Rabbi Hillel, ”If not now, when? If not us, who?”
