Obama är till höger om Hillary

Det är ganska märkligt hur många som tycks tro att Obama är till vänster. Obama hade passat utmärkt som en KD politiker på den svenska politiska skalan. Precis som att tidningen TNR skulle vara någon slags vänster tidning. Knappast sedan Martin Peretz tog över som högerinriktad hejarklacks ledare för den likud-neokonservativa invasionen av Irak. Och som hjärtligt hatar Clintons. Även John Chait hörde förresten till hejarklacks ledarna för Irak invasionen.

Obama försöker göra det som Ronald Reagan gjorde 1980 och samla det som i USA kallas independents och högerdemokrater, tillsammans med kristna grupper. Tillsammans med en del liberala universitets utbildade elitvänstern man kan hitta på platser som Norra Californien. Och svarta i ett allt mer rasbetonat val av döma av SC resultaten. Mer intressant är då om han kan vinna Latinos den största minioritetsgruppen i USA. Eller fackföreningarna som på platser som Nevada gick till HIllary. Obama vann stort på den konservativa landsbyggden.

Det kan också vara värt att uppmärksam hur Hillary angrips för sitt utsende, sina kläder eller för att hon är gift med Bill Clinton. Hon är för aggressiv eller okvinnlig. I många amerikanska medier gillar de helt enkelt inte Hillary för att hon är tuff och agressiv.

Varför kan Michelle Obama gå ut och aggressivt försvara Obama men Bill kan inte försvara Hillary. Det är också intressant hur de hårdaste ’rovianska’ attackerna kommer från den s.k progressiva vänstern. En vänster som medvetet tycks blanda ihop 90-talet med Hillary. Det var knappast Hillary som införde NAFTA. Likadant tycks många ha glömt den republikanska kongressen led av New Gingrich. Han tog ju över när den gamla demokratiska apparaten med sådan utmärkta ledare som Ted Kennedy kollapsade. Samma Ted Kennedy som förövrigt genomförde diverse lagar med GWB.

Likadant allt tal om en Kennedy faktor. JFK var en stenhård realpolitiker av kalla kriget modell. Förutom mordkomplotter och en Kuba invasion åstadkom han inte mycket. Det s.k great society genomfördes i USA av Johnson, inte Kennedy.

Vänster kandidaten om något är John Edwards men han har inget stöd från varken parti-etablissemang eller fackföreningar. Båda har iallafall sluppit bli ’endorsed’ av Oprah Winfrey

Personligen har jag svårt för Obamas religösa väckelsemöten. Men om nu amerikanarna vill ha en demokratisk Ronald Reagan…

SvD » Ledarbloggen

Har högern rätt om Clinton? skriver Jonathan Chait i Los Angeles Times och verkar komma fram till att det är ganska sannolikt. Det är intressant, för Chait är inte precis någon republikansk partigängare utan redaktör vid vänsterns intellektuella flaggskepp The New Republic.Hillary Clinton ser allt mer ut som en sannolik segrare i det demokratiska primärvalet. Samtidigt verkar allt fler känna i maggropen att det är måttligt lyckat. Man vill inte tillbaka till 1990-talet, man gillar inte känslan av att Clinton tycks anse att hon hon har rätten till Vita huset – och man anar att man riskerar att få se betydligt mer av Bill än man önskar sig.

Jag kan bara hålla med. Obama står väl till vänster om Clinton, men jag tycker ändå att det skulle vara skönt om han vann den demokratiska nomineringen. Hans budskap är framåtsyftande i stället för tillbakablickande, han känner för väljarna snarare än för partimaskineriet – och han kommer inte att sända republikanerna i omloppsbana på det destruktiva sätt som en ny anti-Clintonkampanj skulle göra.

THE NEW REPUBLIC | Blogs

The Clintons are in a rage, and a couple enraged against the world is usually taking cover from the rage they feel towards each other.But, since this is a couple which doesn’t even have the comfort of pillow talk, its internal aggressions are projected outwards to the people they have defined as enemies.

Still, imagine Hillary having to come to terms with the fact that her husband — the one adored by the official liberals — has now angered them by his racialist petulance towards their upstart opponents and by the sebaceous indulgence of his own righteous self. The fact that Barack Obama, the prime upstart, is both culturally and literally a person of many textured colors, actually prefiguring the American future, and all at once elegant and agile besides, is a rebuff to the grotesque sexual myth Bill had made of himself. Feh, my mother would have said. Andrew Young may relish these images of his president, especially those with unknown and apparently numberless black women. But to younger people and to more cultured people it is pathos itself. F.D.R. did not parade his liaisons.

Hillary is now inextricably saddled with Bill riding her rump. For all of her declared sense of self she very early in the primary season turned her campaign over to him, certainly thematically, and especially in South Carolina where the nasty business of trying to turn Obama into Jesse Jackson was routinized. This was completely fraudulent: Jackson ran in the South Carolina Democratic primaries twice (1984 and 1988), as Katherine Q. Seelye points out in today’s Times. But these campaigns were in a different America and a different American south, nearly a quarter century ago. Moreover, not even so aggressive a hustler as Jackson thought he had a chance and no one else did either. What he was in 1988 was a spoiler for Al Gore when the party turned to Mike Dukakis, one of the most lapidary candidates ever to represent the Democrats in a presidential contest. But remember it was Clinton who elevated the Reverend J. and made him an ambassador plenipotentiary to the most tawdry of African countries where he might feed at the business of arms and diamonds, blood diamonds, strutting around with great portent everywhere.

The fact is that the campaign will now focus increasingly on Bill Clinton and it is he himself who has brought the lights to the stage. Frank Rich, an old friend of mine who has his fixations, has put his considerable talents to a new subject: the Clinton records left over but buried in the archives. The health care proposal, for example, which turned out to be the first permanent disaster of the administration. Then there are the financial records of the Clinton charities and the presidential library. As a matter of fact, The New Republic was perhaps the first to rivet on the unknowns of these enterprises. Which governments were donors, which zillionaires, which corporations. And what might they expect by way of favors from a term at the helm by the Clintons.

In today’s Times Sunday Opinion page, Rich makes the point:

People don’t change. Bill Clinton, having always lived on the edge, is back on the precipice. When he repeatedly complains that the press has given Mr. Obama a free ride and over-investigated the Clintons, he seems to be tempting the fates, given all the reporting still to be done on his post-presidential business. When he says, as he did on Monday, that “whatever I do should be totally transparent,” it’s almost as if he’s setting himself up for a fall.

Rich filed his column before we knew that Obama had won, before we knew that Obama had won overwhelmingly. So Rich’s words have a tentative tone. Still…

Läs mer i SvD 

Om Claes

A blogger and general internet nerd from Sweden. I write about politics, internet, technology, the world around me and whatever else interest me. I write mostly in swedish but some english.
Det här inlägget postades i Diverse och har märkts med etiketterna , , , , , , , . Bokmärk permalänken.

6 svar på Obama är till höger om Hillary

  1. Pingback: Det röda hjärtat « Ett hjärta RÖTT

  2. Pingback: Varken eller! | Svensson

  3. ckrantz skriver:

    Så du menar JFK var inte involverad i kapprustningen med Sovjet, CIAs latinamerika offensiv, Störtandet av Lumumba, Eskaleringen av vietnamn kriget, Invasionen av kuba eller mordkomplotterna mot Castro för att nämna några händelser? Har sett Fog of War. Ger inget bra intryck över McNamara.

    Missile gap – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The Soviet launch of Sputnik 1 on the 4 October 1957 highlighted the technological achievements of the Soviets and sparked some worrying questions for the politicians and general public of the USA. John F. Kennedy stated ”the nation was losing the satellite-missile race with the Soviet Union because of … complacent miscalculations, penny-pinching, budget cutbacks, incredibly confused mismanagement, and wasteful rivalries and jealousies.”[1] The Russian ”lead” was due mostly to the US having suitably forward basing in Europe and Turkey, allowing them to concentrate on much shorter-range, smaller IRBMs. The Soviets, lacking suitable overseas bases, were forced to move directly to the much larger and technically daunting ICBM, which made them more suitable for space launches. The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) 11-10-57, issued in December 1957, predicted that the Soviets would ”probably have a first operational capability with up to 10 prototype ICBMs” at ”some time during the period from mid-1958 to mid-1959.” After Khrushchev claimed to be producing them ”like sausages”,[2] the numbers started to inflate. A similar report gathered only a few months later, NIE 11-5-58 released in August 1958, concluded that the USSR had ”the technical and industrial capability … to have an operational capability with 100 ICBMs” some time in 1960, and perhaps 500 ICBMs ”some time in 1961, or at the latest in 1962.”[1] None of these estimates were based on anything other than guesswork.

    John F. Kennedy – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Sen. Joseph McCarthy was a friend of the Kennedy family: Joe Kennedy was a leading McCarthy supporter; Robert F. Kennedy worked for McCarthy’s subcommittee, and McCarthy dated Patricia Kennedy. In 1954, when the Senate was poised to condemn McCarthy, John Kennedy drafted a speech calling for McCarthy’s censure, but never delivered it. When on December 2, 1954, the Senate rendered its highly publicized decision to censure McCarthy, Senator Kennedy was in the hospital. Though absent, Kennedy could have ”paired” his vote against that of another senator, but chose not to; neither did he ever indicate then nor later how he would have voted. The episode seriously damaged Kennedy’s support in the liberal community, especially with Eleanor Roosevelt, as late as the 1960 election.[13]

    John F. Kennedy – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    On April 17, 1961, Kennedy ordered the previously planned invasion of Cuba to proceed. With support from the CIA, in what is known as the Bay of Pigs Invasion, 1,500 U.S.-trained Cuban exiles, called ”Brigade 2506,” returned to the island in the hope of deposing Castro. However, Kennedy ordered the invasion to take place without U.S. air support. By April 19, 1961, the Cuban government had captured or killed the invading exiles, and Kennedy was forced to negotiate for the release of the 1,189 survivors. The failure of the plan originated in a lack of dialog among the military leadership, a result of which was the complete lack of naval support in the face of organized artillery troops on the island who easily incapacitated the exile force as it landed on the beach.[18] After 20 months, Cuba released the captured exiles in exchange for $53 million worth of food and medicine. The incident was a major embarrassment for Kennedy, but he took full personal responsibility for the debacle.[citation needed] Furthermore, the incident made Castro wary of the U.S. and led him to believe that another invasion would occur.[19]

    John F. Kennedy – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    In South East Asia, Kennedy followed Eisenhower’s lead by using limited military action to fight the Communist forces ostensibly led by Ho Chi Minh. Proclaiming a fight against the spread of Communism, Kennedy enacted policies providing political, economic, and military support for the unstable French-installed South Vietnamese government, which included sending 16,000 military advisors and U.S. Special Forces to the area. Kennedy also agreed to the use of free-fire zones, napalm, defoliants and jet planes. U.S. involvement in the area continually escalated until regular U.S. forces were directly fighting the Vietnam War in the next administration. The Kennedy Administration increased military support, but the South Vietnamese military was unable to make headway against the pro-independence Viet-Minh and Viet Cong forces. By July 1963, Kennedy faced a crisis in Vietnam. The Administration’s response was to assist in the coup d’état of the Catholic President of South Vietnam, Ngo Dinh Diem.[20] In 1963, South Vietnamese generals overthrew the Diem government, arresting Diem and later killing him (though the exact circumstances of his death remain unclear)[21] Kennedy sanctioned Diem’s overthrow. One reason for the support was a fear that Diem might negotiate a neutralist coalition government which included Communists, as had occurred in Laos in 1962. Dean Rusk, Secretary of State, remarked ”This kind of neutralism…is tantamount to surrender.”

  4. ckrantz skriver:

    Så du menar JFK var inte involverad i kapprustningen med Sovjet, CIAs latinamerika offensiv, Störtandet av Lumumba, Eskaleringen av vietnamn kriget, Invasionen av kuba eller mordkomplotterna mot Castro för att nämna några händelser? Har sett Fog of War. Ger inget bra intryck över McNamara.

    Missile gap – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The Soviet launch of Sputnik 1 on the 4 October 1957 highlighted the technological achievements of the Soviets and sparked some worrying questions for the politicians and general public of the USA. John F. Kennedy stated "the nation was losing the satellite-missile race with the Soviet Union because of … complacent miscalculations, penny-pinching, budget cutbacks, incredibly confused mismanagement, and wasteful rivalries and jealousies."[1] The Russian "lead" was due mostly to the US having suitably forward basing in Europe and Turkey, allowing them to concentrate on much shorter-range, smaller IRBMs. The Soviets, lacking suitable overseas bases, were forced to move directly to the much larger and technically daunting ICBM, which made them more suitable for space launches. The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) 11-10-57, issued in December 1957, predicted that the Soviets would "probably have a first operational capability with up to 10 prototype ICBMs" at "some time during the period from mid-1958 to mid-1959." After Khrushchev claimed to be producing them "like sausages",[2] the numbers started to inflate. A similar report gathered only a few months later, NIE 11-5-58 released in August 1958, concluded that the USSR had "the technical and industrial capability … to have an operational capability with 100 ICBMs" some time in 1960, and perhaps 500 ICBMs "some time in 1961, or at the latest in 1962."[1] None of these estimates were based on anything other than guesswork.

    John F. Kennedy – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Sen. Joseph McCarthy was a friend of the Kennedy family: Joe Kennedy was a leading McCarthy supporter; Robert F. Kennedy worked for McCarthy's subcommittee, and McCarthy dated Patricia Kennedy. In 1954, when the Senate was poised to condemn McCarthy, John Kennedy drafted a speech calling for McCarthy's censure, but never delivered it. When on December 2, 1954, the Senate rendered its highly publicized decision to censure McCarthy, Senator Kennedy was in the hospital. Though absent, Kennedy could have "paired" his vote against that of another senator, but chose not to; neither did he ever indicate then nor later how he would have voted. The episode seriously damaged Kennedy's support in the liberal community, especially with Eleanor Roosevelt, as late as the 1960 election.[13]

    John F. Kennedy – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    On April 17, 1961, Kennedy ordered the previously planned invasion of Cuba to proceed. With support from the CIA, in what is known as the Bay of Pigs Invasion, 1,500 U.S.-trained Cuban exiles, called "Brigade 2506," returned to the island in the hope of deposing Castro. However, Kennedy ordered the invasion to take place without U.S. air support. By April 19, 1961, the Cuban government had captured or killed the invading exiles, and Kennedy was forced to negotiate for the release of the 1,189 survivors. The failure of the plan originated in a lack of dialog among the military leadership, a result of which was the complete lack of naval support in the face of organized artillery troops on the island who easily incapacitated the exile force as it landed on the beach.[18] After 20 months, Cuba released the captured exiles in exchange for $53 million worth of food and medicine. The incident was a major embarrassment for Kennedy, but he took full personal responsibility for the debacle.[citation needed] Furthermore, the incident made Castro wary of the U.S. and led him to believe that another invasion would occur.[19]

    John F. Kennedy – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    In South East Asia, Kennedy followed Eisenhower's lead by using limited military action to fight the Communist forces ostensibly led by Ho Chi Minh. Proclaiming a fight against the spread of Communism, Kennedy enacted policies providing political, economic, and military support for the unstable French-installed South Vietnamese government, which included sending 16,000 military advisors and U.S. Special Forces to the area. Kennedy also agreed to the use of free-fire zones, napalm, defoliants and jet planes. U.S. involvement in the area continually escalated until regular U.S. forces were directly fighting the Vietnam War in the next administration. The Kennedy Administration increased military support, but the South Vietnamese military was unable to make headway against the pro-independence Viet-Minh and Viet Cong forces. By July 1963, Kennedy faced a crisis in Vietnam. The Administration's response was to assist in the coup d'état of the Catholic President of South Vietnam, Ngo Dinh Diem.[20] In 1963, South Vietnamese generals overthrew the Diem government, arresting Diem and later killing him (though the exact circumstances of his death remain unclear)[21] Kennedy sanctioned Diem's overthrow. One reason for the support was a fear that Diem might negotiate a neutralist coalition government which included Communists, as had occurred in Laos in 1962. Dean Rusk, Secretary of State, remarked "This kind of neutralism…is tantamount to surrender."

  5. Dan skriver:

    JFK var inte på något vis en kall krigare; den analysen är helt felaktig och bygger på förutfattade, ideologiskt betingade åsikter snarare än fakta.
    All nyare forskning visar, att Kennedy exempelvis ville UT ur Vietnam och att mordet på honom snarare är att likna vid en statskupp initierad av militär och underrättelsetjänst. De sista presidentiella orderna var att ta hem trupper, vilket LBJ omedelbart ändrade efter sitt tillträde.
    Se filmen ”The Fog of War” om och med Robert McNamara.

  6. Dan skriver:

    JFK var inte på något vis en kall krigare; den analysen är helt felaktig och bygger på förutfattade, ideologiskt betingade åsikter snarare än fakta.

    All nyare forskning visar, att Kennedy exempelvis ville UT ur Vietnam och att mordet på honom snarare är att likna vid en statskupp initierad av militär och underrättelsetjänst. De sista presidentiella orderna var att ta hem trupper, vilket LBJ omedelbart ändrade efter sitt tillträde.

    Se filmen "The Fog of War" om och med Robert McNamara.

Lämna ett svar

Din e-postadress kommer inte publiceras. Obligatoriska fält är märkta *