ed.luce@ft.com on the Democrat’s ‘abandonment’ of Obama. Political Observer comments on Luce’s clumsy Melodrama

The salient fact that Neo-Liberal Obama has been discarded by the New Democrats, seeking to unseat Trump, is hardly a surprise, except for the prisoners of Corporate Journalism: political scribblers still in thrall to Obama’s almost political ‘charisma’. Obama’s tenure was really the Clinton Administration in its 3rd and 4th iteration.

It is one thing for Donald Trump to reverse everything Barack Obama did. His quest is nearing completion. From the Iran nuclear deal to the Paris climate agreement, Mr Trump is stamping on anything with his predecessor’s name on it. The unfinished task is Obamacare, which Republicans have only partially disabled. It is thus ironic that most Democrats vying to replace Mr Trump would finish the job for him. Very few are promising to restore Obamacare. The main exception is Joe Biden, who, as Mr Obama’s number two, helped enact the Affordable Care Act. Even Mr Biden, however, is conflicted about whether to boast of his Obama association, or change the subject.

For comic relief,if any were needed, here is Mr. Luce’s quote from George Packer:

As the writer, George Packer, put it: “Obama was a technocrat disguised as a visionary.”


Better to call Obama what he is, and remains, a Neo-Liberal, with cheerleaders like Oprah Winfrey,  and the now disappeared Arianna Huffington, acolyte of Milton Friedman. You can tell who a man is by the company he keeps? The Affordable Care Act, that monument to Obama as ‘Progressive’, an appellation favored by Huffington, as technocrat/visionary was/is Heritage Foundation Health Care. How inconvenient to the Obama coterie! Medicare for All was the clear winner in the debate!

P. S. It was a wonderful moment, in the debate, to see Tulsi Gabbard confront Kamala Harris, and her execrable record as Attorney General of California:

Political Observer




About stephenkmacksd

Rootless cosmopolitan,down at heels intellectual;would be writer. 'Polemic is a discourse of conflict, whose effect depends on a delicate balance between the requirements of truth and the enticements of anger, the duty to argue and the zest to inflame. Its rhetoric allows, even enforces, a certain figurative licence. Like epitaphs in Johnson’s adage, it is not under oath.' https://www.lrb.co.uk/v15/n20/perry-anderson/diary
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.