« Learnin' the Blues -- Jazz Players Living Without Health insurance | Main | Port's Racking up the Legal Fees »

March 14, 2008

Wolcott Exposes the Naivete of Liberal Bloggers

And, as usual, he does it with a sweetly swift kick to the knuckleheaded noggins of those who fashion themselves gate crashers:

I've never bought the pre-championship palaver that the Republicans were itching keen to face Hillary in the fall, that her mere presence in the race would energize their white-dumpling demoralized base into mobilizing into peasant mobs ready to storm Frankenstein's castle. The party's true savants had underestimated Hillary when she first ran for Senate and saw Rick Lazio's ears get pinned to the mat, and were unlikely to duplicate that error. I believe they're far more wary of the Clinton machine than the Obama phenomenon because a phenomenon can be pricked or pop of its own accord, leaving behind a melting irridescence, whereas a machine like Clinton's feeds on the negativity thrown at it, a juggernaut nightmare designed to keep the opposition guessing every move and plunge Andrew Sullivan into clammy angst ("I woke up in a cold sweat last Wednesday").

And now along comes Wayne Barrett in the Village Voice persuasively arguing and methodically documenting that the original Obama infatuation emanating from such untrustworthies as Robert Novak, Rush Limbaugh, William Bennett, George Will and others was indeed a hydra-headed head fake:


WIth their lipless smiles and lidless eyes, conservative connivers don't even bother to disguise their duplicity, so proud and gleeful are they of their little tricks. And why shouldn't they be, when so many liberal bloggers and pundits are ready to fall for them.

That about covers it. He's absolutely dead-on.

Now go read Barrett's piece. For me, it was just one more reason to shake my head at the seeming inexperience and trumped up self-importance of so many in the lefty blogoshpere -- because the tactics of the conservative pundits have been utterly transparent. It's a wonder so many have been so blind to them.

Posted by shoephone on March 14, 2008 at 10:37 AM in National and International Politics | Permalink


Hey, shoephone, long time no see. How are things?

I believe that a better link to that Wayne Barrett article is here:


It's the direct link, although I don't how long it will work.

Limbaugh's about-face on Obama has been abrupt, and I don't think there's any secret where he stands. As for the others, I suspect that they might be in on it, but then maybe they're just changing their minds a lot. You know, like David Brooks.

It remains to be seen whether all those Republicans who came out to vote for Obama were serious or not. Until this primary season, I thought open primaries were a great idea, figuring that most people would vote for the best candidates no matter which party they were in. Apparently, I'm not quite correct about that. Why would anyone with any sense vote for the candidate they thought was the least qualified? What happens if he wins?

Posted by: Cujo359 | Mar 14, 2008 11:08:52 PM

Hi Cujo. Yes, I guess I've been otherwise engaged in things. At least you give readers a head's up when you're going to be "getting small" again.

Oh I just knew that Vill. Voice link would throw people off, but I kept it in to be consistent with Wolcott's post. Barrett's piece is linked in the "hydra-headed head fake" line.

I guess I never really trust conservative pundits to do anything but go to bat for their team, especially when they think they are being clever and sneaky about it. But Kristol, in particular, is so transparent to me. He is a conservative's conservative and would never be caught dead supporting anyone like Obama who -- while playing to the middle and hoping to seduce Reagan Democrats -- is still a liberal with a liberal's voting record. And Obama's lack of foreign policy and national security creds will never win over the conservative talking heads that populate our airwaves.

The more religious conservatives may not be very happy with McCain, but they will fall in line -- as Republicans ALWAYS DO -- behind the Republican candidate. And now that they have done their about-face on Obama, and are attacking him daily, their real game plan should be bracingly clear to even the most naive. It doesn't help that Obama is changing his stories on the mess of his relationship to Rezko.

Posted by: shoephone | Mar 15, 2008 11:25:20 AM

Excellent point about the naivete of some in the political scene. What's really naive is pretending there are no consequences to our national national security decisions of 5 years ago.


Posted by: TC | Mar 16, 2008 2:54:56 PM

Well, there's no pretense about it here at EP. The debacle of the war and occupation has been covered by myself and most of the other bloggers on this site.

Too bad neither Clinton OR Obama has had the guts to stop funding it. Their Senate votes on funding of the war are exactly the same, and no amount of caterwalling will change that.

Posted by: shoephone | Mar 16, 2008 3:22:11 PM

Thanks for this piece and the link.

I've long thought this was the case--that the trumped-up stories and exaggerated controversies jumped on and stoked by right-wing pundits that included obvious Hillary-hating, but also included unexpectedly strong Obama praise, were little more than manipulation to game Dems and "progressives" into outright rejection of a well-known, previously vetted, centrist and highly-electable candidate (Clinton) in favor of Obama.

There's very little the repugs can throw at Clinton that hasn't been thrown before. Actually if Clinton did win the nomination this could offer Dems and progressive a real opportunity to discredit and expose the right-wing noise machine by revisiting some of the uglier lies and sordid "facts" previously touted as self-evident truths about Clinton by these very same pundits.

Now that the Obama nomination seems certain, all of their previous high praise and support has vanished. While at this juncture it does appear that Obama is electable as well, the vetting process and republican attack machine is just getting started, so who knows what will be "exposed" in the future.

Posted by: ECS | Mar 19, 2008 11:37:48 AM

Ms'phone: been digging your brave heresy as it dares poke at the Obama myth. Having done a bit of it myself, I know that the going can be tough with the true believers.

His apparent lock on the nomination means we're all going to work like hell to make sure the teen screamers, the fan clubbers, and the liberals-for-a-day get the hell out to vote in November for what remains of the battered Barack after the Republican shit machine gets done with him.

Posted by: blathering michael | Apr 9, 2008 12:59:58 PM

Bla'm - When it comes to heretical maneuvers, I'm honored to be in your company.

I've never toed the line very well in the past, and now that the election is winding into the final stages I don't imagine finding myself on the VIP invitation list of the denizens of the mightily winded blogosphere. Ah well, I calls 'em as I sees 'em. After last week's performance by ABC's dumbass divas -- Gibson and Staphlycoccus -- the Obama followers are just now drying their eyes and whining, "but how could they DO that to him?? It's not fair!"

And it's EXACTLY the scenario that Barrett predicted, and that the more jaded among us expected all along. Obama may well beat McCain, but he'll emerge quite bruised in the process.

True to my outsider/iconclastic nature, I think I'll just go practice some Lydian flat 7 patterns and not worry about the unfolding of the election. I'm fairly sure of the results on both accounts.

Posted by: shoephone | Apr 19, 2008 7:46:41 PM

Post a comment