Barack Obama's REAL Albatross
By Leigh Saavedra
06 May,
2008
Countercurrents.org
If Obama finishes up this endless
primary season with the Democratic nomination, he will have conquered
almost impossible hurdles.
Nevermind the early confusion about his background, the lies about
his faith (13 percent of our voters believe he is Muslim), and the
fact that we have found there are more people than expected who will
not under any circumstances vote for an African American. If it stopped
there, it would be a cakewalk. It's not.
Despite the fact that Senator Obama has literally broken records with
the amount of money he has been able to raise so that he's had no
problem with his financing, he has not just faced the supporters of
Hillary Clinton. Despite many opinions that the other Clinton's campaign
has played loosely with misleading and untrue statements, his might
still be an easy victory.
But the real problem is that in addition to having his opponent wage
war on him, as is expected, he has the Republican party out en masse
campaigning for Hillary Clinton. A year ago, I would have said, "Huh?"
to such a statement, but it proves itself more true every day.
Personally, I first saw this when a diehard Republican relative told
me right before the Texas primary that he was going to vote for Hillary
Clinton. Yes, he who hates Democrats was going to vote for one in
the primary. His vote wasn't necessary for the presumed Republican
nominee, John McCain, so he was going to choose the Democratic primary
(in Texas, you can choose either the Democratic or the Republican
primary to vote in). The reason? Because she would be easier to beat
than Obama.
It wasn't long after that surprising revelation that Rush Limbaugh
began to make news by telling his followers to vote for Hillary. He
claimed the purpose was "Operation Chaos," to bring confusion
and disarray to the Democratic primary. He called for "confusion"
all the way to the doors of the convention in Denver, describing scenes
he hoped for, including rioting in the streets and burning cars. But
word on the net was that it wasn't choas so much as keeping Obama
out of the general election that was fueling Limbaugh's cries
Certainly, decent Republicans didn't wish for the rioting and property
destruction Limbaugh sought, but some of them fell into the fury of
voting in a Democratic primary, still trying to keep their most feared
opponent, Obama, off the final ticket. It should be noted that some
(perhaps many) Republicans eschewed this action completely. One especially
high-minded young person I know (another relative), who is a devout
Republican, showed that the Republican party is not devoid of decency.
She voted in the Democratic primary and voted for Obama. Her reason
was that she didn't think McCain could win and in such event, she
wanted the candidate she felt would make the best president. We can
hope that she represents many Republicans.
We have the figures for how many Republicans crossed over to vote
Democratic, but we can't know how many of them simply preferred Obama
(or Clinton) next to how many were chanting Limbaugh's mantra.
Tonight, a few hours from the primaries in Indiana and North Carolina,
I tuned onto Sean Hannity, as I force myself to watch at least half
an hour of FOX each week just to know what they are saying. While
the rest of the world was letting the maelstrom created by Obama's
former pastor's over-the-top comments die down, Hannity devoted his
entire hour to it. First he reminded us of every radical and sometimes-parsed
word Reverend Jeremiah Wright has uttered in the past twenty years.
From there he went into uncharted territory, telling the audience
that in the eighties Wright had supported communist Nicaragua's Sandinistas
and their dictator, Daniel Ortega.
That's always been a very touchy spot for me, outright lies of what
was going on in Nicaragua in the eighties. Though it's sometimes been
difficult to catch people's interest on the out-of-date topic, the
fact is that Ortega was elected in 1984 in a large turnout election
observed and approved by EVERY NATION WHO SENT AN OBSERVER, EVERY
ONE EXCEPT THE UNITED STATES. Never for five minutes was Ortega a
dictator. Hannity went further with the Nicaragua accusations, twisting
them together so that a young listener with no information on the
period might well have come away with the idea that Obama himself
had once been a communist. (The Sandinistas were left leaning, much
like Denmark, but among their competition in elections were the Marxist-Leninists
and the Communist Party.) These are not faulty presentations. They
are facts I myself have recorded on videotapes. I do know, as I was
there for two winters during that period. I spoke several times with
President Ortega and other members of his cabinet, even with his opponent,
Violetta Chamorro. I daresay I know Daniel Ortega far better than
Sean Hannity ever will.
While many of us know that Hannity is not above lying (and that's
putting it politely), many young people listen without questioning.
How many votes did this one-hour performance cost Obama? And that's
just one hour of Rupert Murdock's Republican-supporting "news"
channel. In channel flipping I've paused there many times to hear
Hillary being praised. She appeared on O'Reilly, and for that performance
a person might easily have thought O'Reilly was a gentleman.
It's baffling. And it's false. While most of these Republicans are
going to great lengths to see that Clinton beats Obama in the primary,
most of them will not be voting for her. For those of us who like
straight talk, it's not quite on the up-and-up.
The question is WHY? The easier (and possibly still correct) answer
is stilll that they want to run against Clinton because she'll be
easier to beat. But with all the mudslinging directed at Obama, the
race has narrowed in more than one way. Now the polls show that Clinton
has basically the same chances of beating McCain that Obama does.
And yet the Republican cheerleading by so many goes on.
A terrible theory struck me last night. WHY are they so sure Clinton
won't beat McCain? Is it possible that they have something against
Clinton that they are saving for the general election? It could be
something as unsound as blaming Obama for sitting on a charity board
with a man who was a member of the radical anti-war Weatherman forty
years ago (when Obama was eight years old), but those things work
with some people. What MIGHT they know about Clinton? I should think
anything useful would have come out with all the trumped up "scandals"
they've manufactured during the Bill Clinton years. But maybe they've
saved one, and whether or not it's true (I personally don't think
there could be anything substantial against Ms Clinton) is often irrelevant
to their fierce attack machine.
If I were anywhere near being undecided betwen the two Democratic
nominees, I would ask myself one question: WHY are the Republicans
campaigning so hard for Clinton? If she is telling the truth -- and
as far as I know, she is -- about getting the U.S. out of Iraq and
about rolling back the tax cuts designed for the upper two percent
-- then why do they like her so well?
Much of our lives are defined by the company we keep. Do we want to
vote WITH the Republicans, or do we want to study the issues a little
more carefully and make up our own minds, by casting aside the empty
complaints and the cheering squad that gave us eight years of George
Bush?
Leigh Saavedra (writing for years under Lisa Walsh
Thomas) is a veteran political activist. She has been a teacher, gifted
education specialist, arts columnist, and author of two books, one
the winner of the Washington State Governor's award. She currently
lives in Austin, Texas, and can be reached at [email protected]
(note the period after "leigh").
