But in Portland, people are pissed. He’s betrayed us! He’s sold out! He’s caving to the Republicans! It’s fun to rant and rage and talk about organizing and building some coalitions and maybe putting together another “third party” and raising some awareness here and there and maybe it’s time to really learn to hear each other and honor one another’s stories and have a shitload of meetings to ensure not only that everyone has a voice but that everyone is a stakeholder, and so on.
But this is a rerun, and it’s as pointless this time as it was when it was first aired.
That’s because the fact – the fact, the truth of the matter, the official record to which each and all have round-the-clock and round-the-calendar access – is that the largest single contributor to Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign was Goldman Sachs. I’m sorry to be a bitch about this (more on that later) but if even a fraction of your brain believes that that donation and so many others were an act of benevolence meant to preserve the integrity of Democracy and free elections, you are hopeless.
Here’s my bone of contention: Obama is proof, I think, of the inherent value of having a president who understands the language. I am not joking or being even remotely sarcastic when I say that I celebrate his presidency every single time I hear his voice. But language, of course, can be aimed in any direction, and this week, I feel that Obama aimed his language at those “on the left” who supported him in 2008. This was done, I believe, to appeal to the people who are closer to the middle, people who were, from what I’ve read, actually conflicted about whether to vote for Barack Obama or John McCain and his tundra-tested running mate, a conundrum that I will not dismiss or criticize, but one that baffles me outright. (If you’re reading this and you were undecided in 2008, I mean no disrespect: It’s just that we have yet to meet, so I have yet to hear your side of the story.)
Having been on the receiving end of more than his fair share of smear campaigns, Obama certainly understands that one of the surest ways to win hearts and minds, not to mention votes and campaign contributions, is to identify an opposing group and then trash it. And trash he did: Many of us, myself included, oppose this extension of tax cuts. When all is said and done, this bit of holiday cheer will cost the government more than the 2008 stimulus the Republicans have leveraged, in one of the most amazing examples of political cartoonism I’ve ever seen, to portray Obama as a socialist. And those of us in opposition are, in the words of our president, “sanctimonious” and “purist.”
I’ll take sanctimonious – it’s true! – but purist? I’m no purist, I’m not even close. If I were I would have never voted for Barack Obama. If I were a purist it would have been impossible for me to listen to his high and mighty and thoroughly unconvincing – almost embarrassing, really – attempt to mimic black preachers in certain settings, his “unwavering support” for the homos to live as equals to him and his wife, his tough talk aimed at “the bankers” as they helped themselves to record-breaking bonus payments last year and hundreds of other examples of his “messaging” as anything other than audience-driven fundraising tactics. That knowledge, and that knowledge alone, if I were a purist, would have prevented my hand from blackening (pardon me) the circle beside his name on the ballot.
