Obama the betrayer
Elizabeth Drew reports that many inside-the-Beltway Obama supporters are angry that Greg Craig was tossed under the bus by this administration, with Obama’s tacit approval and acquiescence while others did the dirty work.
It’s a curiously naive article. The sentence that interested me most in that regard was this:
Yes, we knew, or should have, during the campaign that the supposed idealist Obama had a bit of the Chicago cut-throat in him, but there was little sign that he could be as brutal and heedless of loyalty as he was in the Craig affair.
Query to Elizabeth Drew and whomever else might have thought of Obama that way: ever hear of Alice Palmer? Because if you hadn’t, you failed to complete the initial assignment of your homework on your hero. And if you had, you could not have avoided the immediate realization that Obama’s very first political act had been to brutally double-cross his earliest booster and mentor, and to do it as cold-bloodedly and ruthlessly as any Chicago pol—or mobster.
Here’s what Obama did to Alice Palmer. The lengthy article was first published in the Chicago Tribune on April 3, 2007, and it describes events that occurred (and were common knowledge in Chicago) in 1995-1996. So Drew, Craig and the rest: what’s your excuse?
Read the whole article, if you haven’t before. Actually, read it even if you have already read it before, because now that you’ve seen Obama in operation as president, you’ll recognize character traits of his that we’ve become more and more familiar with over time. Elizabeth Drew, Greg Craig (an early and ardent Obama supporter; see this), and anyone else who ever thought that Obama was anything but a cutthroat Chicago pol from the very start would have done well to have read it before they threw their weight behind him, and before his election:
Here are some excerpts (again, I ask you to read the whole thing, because these excerpts merely scratch the surface of what happened). And remember, this was Barack Obama’s maiden voyage, his very first run for political office:
Fresh from his work as a civil rights lawyer and head of a voter registration project that expanded access to the ballot box, Obama launched his first campaign for the Illinois Senate saying he wanted to empower disenfranchised citizens.
But in that initial bid for political office, Obama quickly mastered the bare-knuckle arts of Chicago electoral politics. His overwhelming legal onslaught signaled his impatience to gain office, even if that meant elbowing aside an elder stateswoman like Palmer.
A close examination of Obama’s first campaign clouds the image he has cultivated throughout his political career: The man now running for president on a message of giving a voice to the voiceless first entered public office not by leveling the playing field, but by clearing it.
One of the candidates he eliminated, long-shot contender Gha-is Askia, now says that Obama’s petition challenges belied his image as a champion of the little guy and crusader for voter rights.
“Why say you’re for a new tomorrow, then do old-style Chicago politics to remove legitimate candidates?” Askia said. “He talks about honor and democracy, but what honor is there in getting rid of every other candidate so you can run scot-free? Why not let the people decide?”…
Asked whether the district’s primary voters were well-served by having only one candidate, Obama smiled and said: “I think they ended up with a very good state senator.”…
Palmer served the district in the Illinois Senate for much of the 1990s. Decades earlier, she was working as a community organizer in the area when Obama was growing up in Hawaii and Indonesia. She risked her safe seat to run for Congress and touted Obama as a suitable successor, according to news accounts and interviews.
But when Palmer got clobbered in that November 1995 special congressional race, her supporters asked Obama to fold his campaign so she could easily retain her state Senate seat.
Obama not only refused to step aside, he filed challenges that nullified Palmer’s hastily gathered nominating petitions, forcing her to withdraw.
“I liked Alice Palmer a lot. I thought she was a good public servant,” Obama said. “It was very awkward. That part of it I wish had played out entirely differently.”
His choice divided veteran Chicago political activists.
“There was friction about the decision he made,” said City Colleges of Chicago professor emeritus Timuel Black, who tried to negotiate with Obama on Palmer’s behalf. “There were deep disagreements.”
Had Palmer survived the petition challenge, Obama would have faced the daunting task of taking on an incumbent senator. Palmer’s elimination marked the first of several fortuitous political moments in Obama’s electoral success: He won the 2004 primary and general elections for U.S. Senate after tough challengers imploded when their messy divorce files were unsealed.
Obama contended that in the case of the 1996 race, in which he routed token opposition in the general election, he was ready to compete in the primary if necessary.
“We actually ran a terrific campaign up until the point we knew that we weren’t going to have to appear on the ballot with anybody,” Obama said. “I mean, we had prepared for it. We had raised money. We had tons of volunteers. There was enormous enthusiasm.”
And he defended his use of ballot maneuvers: “If you can win, you should win and get to work doing the people’s business.”
And here he is now, doing the people’s business once more. Ain’t it wonderful?
> And here he is now, doing the people’s business once more. Ain’t it wonderful?
I’ve always differentiated “doing the people’s business” from “doing one’s business on the people”, myself…
:oS
They might be angry, but they shouldn’t be surprised. Obama reminds me of a line from one of the Flashman novels by George M. Fraser: “Nothing can make me puke in terror faster than an Oriental despot telling me I’m inconvenient”. In this case, that despot is Obama, and Mr. Craig had the misfortune to become inconvenient.
That puts the coordinated scorched-earth propaganda campaign against Sarah Palin in context.
Now that I think of it, I do seem to recall some media talking heads, within days of her nomination, saying that she probably should withdraw for the good of the ticket.
There have been other examples of willful ignorance and willful and intentional lack of interest in Obama the candidate. When the “G-d DAMMM Amerikka” stuff came out with respect to the Reverend who MARRIED the Obamas and was mentioned glowingly by Obama — Obama proceeded to throw the Rev under the bus, and disclaimed any knowledge of what the guy was spewing from the pulpit.
Any interest in fact-checking or follow-up on that from the MSM – you know, like how they have 11 “fact checkers” looking for ways to call b.s. on Palin’s book right now?
Because (on the internet of course) an old Chicago Sun Times interview of Obama came to light — and the topic of his church attendance at that church came up. And his quote was something along the lines of “Yep – every Sunday; 11 o’clock service.”
What percentage of the 53% of the voters who voted for Obama where aware of how truly a close connection he actually had with Wright? I’ll bet a very small percentage. Because the MSM had NO intentions of enlightening people.
Oh, and Neo – doesn’t this story on Alice Palmer tip the scales in favor of ‘knave’ rather than ‘fool.”??
Appropos of nothing in this post, an article in Business Week was a much needed dose of optimistic news.
reminds me of the words people say after their ideas get them involved with a bear, lion, shark, etc.
they really cant comprehend and get their mind around how cute and cuddly is a defence to make it easier to kill them.
“Yes, we knew, or should have….”
They’re unhappy that one of their own was betrayed. They’re okay with any sort of thuggery as long as it’s practiced against opponents or “little people who don’t count”.
This is very reminiscent of the leftists of the 1920’s and 30’s who knew perfectly well what monsters Lenin and Stalin were, but never objected until they saw that commies and commie sympathizers like themselves might get liquidated.
Clearly, progressives cannot change.
waltj speaks of the great Harry Flashman, most definitely a knave and only occasionally a fool.
Flashman’s astute, astringent cynicism is quite the antidote for the flabby, self-serving nonsense we hear daily from Obama.
Anyone in need of a holiday travel book could do worse than picking up one of the Flashman novels or audiobooks (esp with David Case as the reader). The author, George McDonald Fraser, sadly deceased in 2008, is an absolute treasure:
…I’ve sweated and scampered through during fifty inglorious years of soldiering. Leastways, I know they were inglorious, but the country don’t, thank heaven, which is why they rewarded me with general rank and the knighthood and a double row of medals on my left tit. Which shows you what cowardice and roguery can do, given a stalwart appearance, long legs and a thumping slice of luck…
“Flashman in the Great Game”
pst314, you are correct. They knew that Obama had “a bit” of that ruthlessness in him, but they thought they knew who the targets would be. People pointing out this side of him were dismissed as exaggerators or those icky people who were getting in the way of progress.
They knew. This is why the abandoning of liberalism is so often a personal issue, involving self-honesty and the simpler virtues, rather than a mere change of opinion and perspective. If self-honesty became the fashion in America, liberalism would cease to be a force.
To be fair, we’d lose a lot of conservatives and libertarians as well. But self-deception are incidental to those approaches, not central.
southernjames: I’ve thought “knave” for a long time. But as I said, that and “fool” are not mutually exclusive. Since I believe it’s “knave,” I’m hoping for “fool” as well.
I read the Alice Palmer article early on in the campaign. I remember trying to tell my friends about it when they said how wonderful and full of integrity Obama was, and it just couldn’t get any traction with them.
AVI: My point in using the Alice Palmer incident as an example in this post is that his supporters should have known that they would be the targets of his ruthlessness sooner or later. The first thing Obama did was to eat one of his/their own for breakfast; Alice Palmer was a black, “progressive,” female mentor of his who had promoted him and given him his start.
Asked whether the district’s primary voters were well-served by having only one candidate, Obama smiled and said: “I think they ended up with a very good state senator.”…
This was echoed not long thereafter by “I like being President, and it turns out I’m very good at it.”
It struck me in reading Drew’s piece that before he got tossed under the bus, Craig himself was a betrayer of the people who gave him his start in politics — the Clintons. I did not realize that he had turned on them to such a degree that he was responsible for the memo challenging Hillary’s “under fire” claims, or that the ill will ran so deep that he could not serve close to her as Secretary of State in the Obama administration. It’s a little ironic that Drew does not seem to realize what she’s telling us about him, or about her own selective willingness to accept such politics-as-usual behavior.
I’d say “knave” within his well-known parameters; a cunning fish in a little pond. But out in the big ocean, swimming with the Russian, Chinese, Iranian sharks, and many other nasty smaller fry that swim in their wake, the “fool” light comes on. The trouble is, he’s been the golden boy for so long, he doesn’t know where his ‘hood ends and the next guy’s begins. I’m watching for the day the smug smirk is wiped off his lying face – I suspect it won’t be until his own physical hide is in danger; that’s the only thing that really scares people like him.
“I think they ended up with a very good state senator.”
Yeh, but the job bored him to death. He didn’t care enough about anything to do more than vote yes. Why should such a brilliant man worry about the state budget for road repair or personnel requirements for state parks? The everyday problems of life are beneath him. He has the grand answer to all the world’s problems–himself. Pity the poor jerks like Alice Palmer who stand in his way.
It’s not just that Obama is an empty suit, it’s that he is a black hole that sucks thing like character, morality, common sense and real empathy from the world we inhabit. Nothing counts but his place in the spotlight. He has never in his whole life risked that place for principle.
expat:
Slight addendum on your 6:19PM post:
More often that not he voted ‘present’. That is, neither Yea nor Nay.
Thanks, Addison. That’s what I meant. I had a long day.
I would put it this way Expat. O is driven by his ambition, narcissism, lack of empathy-sensitivity and his left wind imprinting, nothing else matters (or should I say the rest is commentary). If his actions are interpreted by those four traits his behavior becomes as predictable as a laboratory rat.
Take health care; it primary purpose for Obama is not to improve quality of life but as a huge monument to his greatness, like the Assaw High Dam was for Nasser. That the dam caused a great deal of avoidable damage and there were better less expensive alternatives mattered less than its use as a reflection of Nasser’s glory. Obama will doubtless show the same pattern of behavior, looking for great monuments to his glory until he is stopped.
For the first time in US history we have a sociopath or near sociopath as president.
“I’d say “knave” within his well-known parameters; a cunning fish in a little pond. But out in the big ocean, swimming with the Russian, Chinese, Iranian sharks, and many other nasty smaller fry that swim in their wake, the “fool” light comes on…”
I’d say the good doctor connects and hits this one into the cheap seats. For supposedly so “worldly” a president, it’s amazing how he gets rolled every time he tries negotiating with those who clearly have his number. Just because he lived in Indonesia as a child and visited Pakistan as a teen doesn’t necessarily translate into practical knowledge about how to formulate U.S. foreign policy. Chicago machine politics will only get you so far.
Dr. Mabuse: I agree with waltj. Very well put.
So, a knave domestically and a fool internationally. The worst of all possible worlds.
Great. Just great.
rickl: You have condensed our conversation beautifully.
If there’s ever a time to remember the story about picking up a turd from the clean end, it’s’ when discussing the character of Chicago politics. Since Obama emerged from the Chicago machine, he had to be part “of” that machine.
So, a knave domestically and a fool internationally.
rickl: Yes, that does put it well.
IMO Obama does believe his high-minded moral posturing on the international stage. I suspect that he is genuinely perplexed that it hasn’t ushered in the Obama Golden Age or, in fact, yielded any positive results at all.
With the respect to Obama, if the question is, “Knave or Fool?’ the answer is obviously “Yes.” Now apply the same question to his supporters.
It is clear that people like Elizabeth Drew voted for an Obama who only existed in their heads. It is not in the nature of this spectral Obama to do anything that gets his hands dirty or indeed to do anything other than strike poses and mouth platitudes that make the Elizabeth Drews of the world feel comforted and vindicated.
Any attribute of the real Obama that doesn’t fit the mental image is neatly edited out, much in the same way that the MSM will treat the indications of scientific fraud at the Hadley Climate Research Centre: it never happened.
Every day must be a revelation to liberals/leftists. They never seem to anticipate how future events will unfold, hence their undying devotion to collectivism. They seem to live in a child’s world, rather like a Disney movie, where the lions come together with the gazelles and their other prey to sing the closing theme as the credits roll, never realizing that lions have to eat, and they do that by…ripping out the throats and/or entrails of their prey to kill them.
Of course Obama is a narcissistic ruthless piece of work. What grownup failed to appreciate that? So now he acts like a narcissistic ruthless piece of work, and they’re surprised. Amazing.
Now even SNL is concluding that Obama is a fool internationally.
Their skit this week is one of the most vicious and hilarious political jibes I’ve seen on any president.
Amazing.
OB – apropos my comments on the CRU thread: ask yourself what psychological benefit(s) liberals derive from the belief that they in general, and Obama in specific, are basically gentle people who only occasionally have to take a harsh hand with the barbarians?
assistant:
The benefit is that they think they are safe. Part of the belief is that the barbs are mean because they, the Gentle People, are mean.
If the GP roll over and pee on themselves, everybody will be nice to them.
Hmm is anyone else experiencing problems with the images on this blog loading?
I’m trying to find out if its a problem on my end or if it’s the blog.
Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.