356 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biographypoint had been that the Carter coup inside the Democratic Party had only been possible in the first
place because of an extraordinarily high degree of chaos and disorganization among the Democrats
after eight years of Nixon and Ford. Broder noted: ‘The main theme of Jordan’s interview was this
intriguing observation: “Only because of the fragmentation that had taken place” in the Democratic
Party and its allied groups was Carter able to be nominated and elected in 1976. But that same
fragmentation made the challenge of governing so difficult that he was almost doomed to fail. What
Jordan meant was this: In the two previous elections, the Democratic Party was riven by strife over
the Vietnam War, social policy and civil rights. It was bitterly divided by the nomination of Hubert
Humphrey over Eugene McCarthy in 1968, and of George McGovern over Humphrey and others in
- In 1974, after Watergate ended the Republican revival, the old-guard Democrats suddenly
confronted an influx of reform-minded new faces in Congress. But once Carter was in the White
House, the liberals who controlled Congress quickly took his measure. They put their obligations to
their constituencies and interest groups ahead of any loyalty to him. He never had a “honeymoon,”
and by his third year his presidency had unraveled, not because of Republican obduracy but because
of his inability to lead his fellow Democrats. gained his first and most important win in Iowa with
37.6 percent of the votes, while Hillary Clinton and John Edwards split almost 60 percent evenly.
Both Carter and Obama lost several late primaries but held on to the delegate lead they had staked
out earlier. This is the cautionary tale Obama and his brain trust could find in Jordan’s interview.
Obama, too, has profited from fragmentation in the Democratic Party that has allowed a long shot,
once again, to capture its greatest prize. But if he is elected, he will have to solve the problems of
fragmentation that doomed Jimmy Carter.’ (David Broder, Washington Post, May 29, 2008)
Naturally, Broder did not mention the real basis of in-depth comparison between Carter and
Obama, which is that both are puppets of the Trilateral Commission and of Zbigniew Brzezinski
personally. Nevertheless, this point is well taken, and has already been discussed by me in the
companion volume to this study, Obama — The Postmodern Coup: the Making of a Manchurian
Candidate, where I developed a detailed comparison between the Carter regime and the likely
outlines of a future Obama rule. By running as a blank slate, and by promising to be all things to all
people, Obama at will necessarily face a moment of shocked recognition when the majority of his
followers be allies that they have been hoodwinked by his sanctimonious utopian platitudes and
vapid messianic rhetoric. That moment is likely to come less than 12 months into Obama’s term in
office. But since the political, economic, and military crisis of the United States today is so much
more severe than it was three decades ago we cannot assume that the penalty for letting Obama into
the White House will be comparable to what it was under Reagan and Bush, bad as those presidents
were. Rather, the perspective under Obama would have to be a catastrophic combination of
hyperinflationary economic depression and breakdown crisis, accompanied by extreme forms of
foreign military adventure likely to end in crushing defeat, with the United States internal political
situation rapidly degenerating in the direction of possible civil war, somewhat along the lines of the
breakdown of public order in the Roman Empire during the 50 year crisis of the third century A.D.
RALPH NADER: OBAMA EXPLOITS WHITE GUILT
There was an immediate necessity for critical voices to start attacking Obama from his left, since
that was his greatest vulnerability. Here was an area where Ralph Nader could perhaps provide an
important public service. Nader shared his views about Obama with the Rocky Mountain News:
Q: Do you see Barack Obama as qualitatively different than Al Gore or any other Democrats.
He talks about taking on lobbyists, not taking money directly from lobbyists ... People portray