364 Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized BiographyObama. First, Obama does not campaign on issues in any systematic way. He presents himself as
the Perfect Master, the Anointed One, the Savior, the Messiah, the Mahdi. His hysterical followers
are obsessed, not with a political program or a set of issues, but with the personality cult of Obama.
This means that any attempt to engage Obama on the issues is by definition an impotent and self-
defeating tactic. The only useful objections that can be made to Obama are ad hominem
biographical revelations designed to show that he is not so anointed after all, and that his ability to
walk on water has been overestimated. Then there is also the matter of Obama’s notorious duplicity
and flip-flops even where he does have specific positions on certain issues. First Obama wanted a
fixed schedule for getting out of Iraq, but Samantha Power revealed that this was not the case at all.
Barky said he wanted a different kind of foreign policy, and then he pandered to AIPAC, probably
lying through his teeth in the process. First Obama wanted to help the lower income brackets, but
now he is talking about cutting the corporate income tax. Obama attacked free trade in Ohio and
Pennsylvania, even as his top economic controller, Austan Goolsbee of the Friedmanite Chicago
School reassured the Canadians that this was just election posturing; now Obama told Fortune
magazine that he likes free trade and is devoted to “free markets.”^189 First Obama was going to be
tough on FISA; now he went going along with the Democratic congressional leaders as they attempt
to appease Bush. Obama had built his career on ethics in government and reducing the role of
political contributions; now he turned his back on the only meager legislative achievements by
becoming the first presidential candidate in modern times to repudiate matching funds in the general
election. Most dramatic was Obama’s about face on Iraq, where he was now signaling an open-
ended commitment. On all these points, to attempt a substantive debate with Obama is a fool’s
errand. The only way to pin Barky down was through pointed reference to crucial facts in his own
background, biography, and associations which cannot be changed or swept under the rug. Any
other approach was deliberate impotence and capitulation.
DEAN-BRAZILE MINORITY COUP SPLITS DEMOCRATS
On May 31, 2008 the Rules Committee of the Democratic National Committee took a giant step
on the road to political suicide. Their decision to cut in half the voting strength of the Florida and
Michigan delegations effectively disenfranchised the voters of these two vital and indispensable
states, and reduced them to second-class citizenship. Even the infamous three-fifths compromise
embodied in the US Constitution of 1787 treated a slave better than the Democratic National
Committee was treating the voters of Florida and Michigan. Without these two states, any
Democratic ticket was doomed to defeat in the November election. The Democratic Party does not
exist for the primary purpose of obeying its own rules; it exists for the purpose of winning elections,
and the goal of such winning is that the interests of the people may be served and defended. This
basic truth of equity had now been trampled on by the Dean-Brazile-Obama Wall Street puppets.
Howard Dean, Donna Brazile, and their retainers argued that they owe it to black voters and to
fervent youthful idealists to make sure that Obama gets the nomination. In reality, the Democratic
National Committee has proven over and over again that it does not care a damn about black voters,
nor about young voters either. Dean and Brazile get their orders from Wall Street bankers like
Rockefeller and Soros and their associated think tanks, and it is these Wall Street interests that are
demanding Obama be nominated to carry out a program of draconian domestic economic austerity
and a final confrontation with Russia and China, as prescribed by the Brzezinski Plan. By their
actions, Dean, Brazile, and the Obama campaign had already split the Democratic Party. It is they
who had to assume the historical responsibility for the impending scission. If you exclude half of