Obama Gets McCabed - the latest in political character assassination

Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

Samuel Johnson

If Nash McCabe, a previously obscure Latrobe, PA resident who asked Obama via a taped question during Wed.’s Presidential debate what he thought about the flag, and, moreover, why he doesn’t wear a flag pin in his lapel, represents rural America then, yes, Obama was dreadfully wrong about bitter rural Americans clinging to their guns and religion. Apparently, if McCabe’s representative of rural America, they first and foremost cling to old fashion patriotism, or more specifically, appearance over reality.

You’d think by now, after countless Neocon "patriots" proudly sporting flag pins have harmed this country more than any anarchist army of Weathermen ever did, that Americans would see that the mere show of patriotism hasn’t been that beneficial since 9/11. The main question isn’t whether or not government officials are patriotic, but, What are they patriotic to? America as a hegemony? Wal-Mart world? Forcibly seizing foreign oil? Their own pockets?

Unfortunately, America is far too superficial a country to seriously
explore such questions at length, which is why McCabe, and many others across the internet, have unabashedly questioned Obama’s patriotism. This is why still today, hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of Americans still believe Obama swore in as a Senator
on a Qur’an, that he has disgust for the flag and much that America represents.

Where do these assertions come from? Perform your own Google search for a taste of the malevolence that now passes as credible political critiques. The abundance of them and the systematic distribution dating back to late ’07 indicate they are being issued and spread by a Clinton War Room — the revivified body that was dedicated during Bill Clinton’s Administration to responding to viscious charges rather than disseminating them. Somehow, Team Clinton was convinced, early on, that accentuating Obama’s middle name, Hussein, and a few unsubstantiated charges about his supposed anti-Americanism would be sufficient to wound him so badly he could never recover.

So far, Team Clinton’s malevolent attacks have been consistently ineffectual. And the last debate made that apparent as most of the first hour was devoted to keeping Obama on the defensive without, however, forcing him into a corner he couldn’t crawl out of. He’s a remarkably resilient and creatively spontaneous individual who doesn’t strike back out of anger, or lose his cool when being summarily discredited — traits that a bright, reasonable President will need in talking to leaders around the world in an effort to restore America’s standing in the world. Indeed, he will be a stark contrast to the current Administration’s macho bravado.

Ironically, as Team Clinton has been beating him over the head, as much of the media has done for months — Mrs. Clinton was the clear pick among the corporate and media elite back in early ’07 — he has proved, time and time again, that he can remain focused and gracious
in hostile circumstances while accomplishing his aims. The more he gets beat up, the more clear it becomes that he has the skill set required for the next exceedingly difficult four years. Team Clinton,
which had, at one point, an insurmountable lead, would’ve been wiser assuming the high ground, and polishing their public relations skills.

No, Obama’s not a perfect candidate. He’s made compromises, and at times appears too slick for his own good, but he’s now the only viable candidate left who can effectively restore dignity and decency, and above all, the hope for a more peaceful world in Washington. And corporate lapdogs like Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, who attempted to undo the Obama momentum for their ultra conservative employer, like their predecessors, failed to assassinate the character of a unique politician who doesn’t play the traditional bivalent, good or evil, patriot or scoundrel game.

Nope. Obama has successfully negotiated the maze of barbarous political auditions because he has a post bivalent strategy for American politics — an arena in which individuals aren’t shamed for not wearing flag pins or having flawed clerics in their lives but where ideas matter and compromises among wise leaders work in favor of the public welfare.

If you are still undecided, then seriously consider Clinton’s strident approach to foreign policy in the last debate. She insisted, twice, that any nation that attacks Israel or an American ally in the Middle East would receive "massive retaliation" in response. Revved up by Stephanopoulos’s baseless charge that Iran is actively running a nukes program, Clinton exhibited a frightening hawkish side, akin to Dick Cheney’s neoimperialistic sensibility.

Yes, domestically, Clinton’s a traditional liberal, but without many innovative plans for how to successfully run a terribly complicated and stressed economy other than raising taxes and freezing interest rates. On foreign policy, however, she’s clearly a right wing hawk who’s fearful of not appearing strong and would thus be quicker on the trigger
because she’s afraid of looking weak.

Why’s this so disturbing? Because if the U.S. attacks Iran without first seeking wise accommodation, then the Middle East will blow up into an uncontrollable inferno. The Strait of Hormuz would be blocked, and fought over. Oil could rise to $200 a bl. A draft would be necessary to field sufficient soldiers. The world economy would be thrown into turmoil. Radical Islamic groups would grow like a virus.

And all that talk about universal heathcare, social security, better jobs, college for everyone and a toy in every box of popcorn would vanish in a puff of smoke. That’s the inherent weakness in Clinton’s philosophy, which, aside for her intolerable personality, is a great reason for voting against her. She may be right about Americans not being bitter and clinging to their guns and religion, but that would soon change if she were to get her way and pursue her Neocon objectives about restructuring the Middle East. Above all, that’s the kind of world many Americans can’t wait to put behind them.