Divide and conquer?
This Politico piece about how Obama’s campaign has been flatfooted and awkward contains the following rather amusing observation:
Some key Democrats say they have been dismayed watching Obama become a divider not a uniter, trying to incite anger among women, students and older voters.
To be fair, Politico is trying to contrast Obama’s 2012 overt campaign message with his 2008 overt campaign message, although even back in 2008, Obama talked out of both sides of his mouth on that. However, unless they haven’t been paying attention for the last four years, those “key Democrats” quoted should have noticed that there’s no way Obama could run with a “uniter” message this time without sounding ludicrous to all but the most devoted Obamaphiles.
Or it’s all just spin.
It’s actually pathetic how little the Democrats know about Obama. Obama is the product not of his abilities but of others’ perceptions of him. Four years ago O responded to accolades, hossanahs, and panegyrics and he swaggered. What has he to go on now? Chagrin, disapointment, failure, dashed hopes. If Democrats want a lion they must lionize.
Oh, and cue the guys with the Greek columns.
It’s all just spin. Let’s remember who Politico is. It’s an apology piece for Obama while at the same time communication to Obama to do better. Quite wonderfully, it’s not just Obama who is flatfooted, but Politico as well. It doesn’t know what Obama should do.
Obama’s pride has put him where he is. He was too proud to humble himself so as to receive true knowledge leading to real results. Obama’s trait of unteachability was noticed by his classmates. Pride goeth before a fall and Obama’s pride has left him no options and no friends.
View the irony of the first sentence of Politico’s piece: “Nothing inspires Democrats like the Barack Obama swagger – the supreme self-confidence on stage, the self-certainty in private.” First, this claim is dubious because no-one, not even progressives (perhaps progressives least of all) likes a braggart. But more importantly, Obama hasn’t lost his swagger. It just appears so to those who now question whether Obama is right.
“[T]here’s no way Obama could run with a ‘uniter’ message this time without sounding ludicrous to all but the most devoted Obamaphiles.”
Neo, there is no doubt in my poor, beleaguered little mind that you are very familiar with the term “cognitive dissonance”. Plus the will of the true believer to believe.
Divide and conquer?
I’m attempting to figure out how Neo means that headline. Does it refer to the latest Conservative response which is dividing the Democrats? So there would be a sense of irony to the phrase?
Or does it refer to Obama’s strategy of dividing the American electorate into little islands labelled black, gay, welfare . . . ?
Or does the question mark after the phrase ques us to question whether the strategy of “divide and conquer” is working?
I’ll go with that last one combined with some of the first. “Divide and conquer,” as a sword of the left, has become a sword of the right.
Wait, wait, wait.
One last interpretation, and given Neo’s regard for moderateness, probably the right one:
Moderates are questioning/rejecting “divide and conquer” which is making that strategy a losing strategy.
Well, if that’s the interpretation, what took them so long?
There are also Republican moderates who are dismayed at the “incivility” of the “extreme” right (as exampled by West, Malkin, Palin and Limbaugh). I heartily disagree, but think their view good medicine to maintain rationality as far as possible in the level of war one is in. (Ahh, it’s that last statement that messes it all up.)
For the views of the Republican moderates, see the following link:
http://volokh.com/2012/05/25/fumento-on-todays-right-wing-darlings/
M J R: yes, but Obama has to appeal to more than the true believers.
Poor little Politico and the MSM in general. The tingles have stopped and the more honest ones are slowly coming to realize their messiah is not dividing loaves and fishes to feed the multitudes. He is not turning water into wine. Instead, a glass of wine costs north of $1,000 at a fundraising dinner. Alas, the promised utopia is merely Chicago style nasty politics and blatant corruption writ large across the 57 states. And woe is Politico because he may just succeed at dragging down the entire ticket come November.
It ain’t the way: http://tinyurl.com/3pcj7xg
I wonder if the difference between the campaign in 2008 and the campaign this year is that Obama has excluded all but a few trusted advisors who may reinforce his unrealistically high self regard. He may be running the campaign himself. He would do well to remember the triumphant Roman generals who had someone whisper in their ears ‘all glory is fleeting.’
And as a counterpoint, Obama would do well to remember Hitler who turned the awesome Prussian war machine into his lapdog.
Is there any absolution in that the American equivalent of the Prussian war machine, our South, has been the core of our war machine, a war machine which we have all come to value?
neo-neocon has replied:
“M J R: yes, but Obama has to appeal to more than the true believers.”
True enough. But there are many who to a degree are now seeing straight through The One, but for whom the lesser-of-evils choice nevertheless finds them choosing Obama rather than Romney — especially those who are fundamentally left-oriented while not necessarily off the charts.
(And those latter many, combined with the true believer Obamaphiles, have got Obama competitive as of today.)
No?
Are they so new that they can’t understand both the strengths and weaknesses of words like “change” and “reform” in a campaign.
Everyone wants changes and reformations, we just don’t agree on what they should be.
Just like “it’s turtles all the way down”, it’s lies all the way down.