BloggeRhythms

Today’s major subject concerns the Editorial Board of the New York Times @nytimes.com, who’ve apparently woken up to realize that their vaunted idol Obama is not only mortal, but nothing more than a typical self-serving politician at the core. And just like the Wizard of Oz, who turned out to be an everyday middle-aged man, he’s been projecting an image that simply doesn’t exist.  

The Board’s column begins with a quote from then Senator Barack Obama’s book, “The Audacity of Hope”

"I found myself spending time with people of means — law firm partners and investment bankers, hedge fund managers and venture capitalists. As a rule, they were smart, interesting people. But they reflected, almost uniformly, the perspectives of their class: the top 1 percent or so of the income scale.” 

“He wrote in 2006: “I know that as a consequence of my fund-raising I became more like the wealthy donors I met. I spent more and more of my time above the fray, outside the world of immediate hunger, disappointment, fear, irrationality, and frequent hardship of … the people that I’d entered public life to serve.” 

The Board then questions whether or not it’s a “betrayal of that sentiment for the former president to have accepted a reported $400,000 to speak to a Wall Street firm.” In answer, they conclude that even if it is not, “it is disheartening that a man whose historic candidacy was premised on a moral examination of politics now joins almost every modern president in cashing in.”

They then go on to state that “it shows surprising tone deafness, more likely to be expected from the billionaires the Obamas have vacationed with these past months than from a president keenly attuned to the worries and resentments of the 99 percent.”

From there, the Board writes three paragraphs in words worthy of the publication they represent as they carefully remain steadfastly supportive while subtly acknowledging their recognition of the sellout taking place by their icons, as follows:  

“Mr. Obama and his wife, Michelle, began their post-White House careers with twin book deals reported to be worth as much as $65 million. And why not? Mr. Obama is a pathbreaking figure and established writer whose two terms traversed a stormy period economically, militarily and diplomatically. Through his writing, Mr. Obama could shed important light on his decision making. As a couple and a family, the Obamas brought grace, empathy and high standards to their time in the White House, in stark contrast to the workaday vulgarity of its current occupants. Not many administration look-backs promise education and inspiration, and the Obamas’ books are much anticipated.

“The Obamas are starting a foundation whose work will include “training and elevating a new generation of political leaders in America,” Eric Schultz, an Obama adviser, said in a statement. “President Obama will deliver speeches from time to time. Some of those speeches will be paid, some will be unpaid, and regardless of venue or sponsor, President Obama will be true to his values, his vision, and his record.”

And it’s in this third paragraph where the Board finally presents its reason for publicizing its realization of what’s become of Democrat leadership. “The Democratic Party badly needs such an example to follow. As the presidential election clarified so painfully, the traditional party of working people has lost touch with them. In a poll released last week, more than two-thirds of voters, including nearly half of Democrats themselves, said the Democratic Party is out of touch with the concerns of the American people. For the first time in memory, Democrats are seen as more out of touch with ordinary Americans than the party’s political opponents. There’s little doubt that Democratic leaders’ unseemly attachment to the party’s wealthiest donors contributed to that indictment.” 

Then, after rightfully accusing Democrat “leaders,” a group which most certainly includes Obama, of “attaching” themselves to the wealthiest donors, the Board closes with what is an indirect acknowledgement of their realization that he has indeed already sold them and their principles out. 
  
“From Mr. Obama’s earliest days in government, he wrestled with what it means to be a representative public servant in an era of purchased influence. He didn’t always make the right decisions, he acknowledged. Now, as he commits to building future American leaders, we have the audacity to hope he’ll set a higher standard for past presidents.” 

A similar, far more direct plea came from former White House green jobs czar Van Jones who appeared on CNN’s “State of the Union,” yesterday, proposing “his old boss, former President Barack Obama, go on a “poverty tour” before doing paid speeches to keep from receiving backlash.” 

According to Trent Baker @breitbart.com: “Jones said: “I hope [Obama] will do a tour — go to Appalachia, go to Native American reservations where they’re shoving these pipelines down their throats and they don’t even have clean, running water. Go to South Central, go to the Arizona border where you have a lot of poverty.” 

He added, “If he would do a poverty tour first … from a moral point of view, it would be great for him to do.” 

To that, reader rpu28  commented: “Too late. Obama had eight years to help the poor, but did little more than expand welfare and convince them that they are hopeless, helpless victims.

“And I'm guessing that none of that $400,000 will find its way to charity.”

164 others agreed with that. 

FIDO, a Deplorable Redneck added: “Obama had 8 years to help the poor, and he did -- he helped a lot more people become poor.” 

LEEPERMAX opined: “8 years was enough ... 

“Breitbart should no longer do any articles about Obama ... as the man is 100% irrelevant!” 

Thus, it’s quite obvious that in today’s age of instant availability to information of all sorts in a wide variety of formats, astute observers of political trends such as the New York Times Editorial Board realize pure propaganda alone is no longer viable. Today’s electorate simply knows too  much.   

Which is why they're now forced to direct pleas for austerity to Democrat leadership, which is more than likely a hopeless endeavor. Because whether it was building the net worth of Roosevelt ($60 million,) Kennedy ($1 billion,) Lyndon Johnson ($100 million,)  the Clintons ($240 million,) or Obama ($12.2 million,) for them all, following the money was always what it was all about.

That's it for today folks.

Adios