Is Obama really a Socialist?

[Maximus]

And we are suprised Obama appoints a Marxist?

[Steve D'Ippolito]

How was this not discovered sooner? She was appointed in November!

How utterly depressing...

Edit: I'm not sure why I'm asking why it wasn't discovered...even if it was, it's not like it would have mattered to his voters.

It *might* have, if they had ever been told. The mainstream media won't report it. The media that does report it is obviously just a bunch of right-wing buffoons like "Faux" news. Obviously anything on "Faux" news is just false.

If this woman gets confirmed, half of the country will know she was a Marxist and the other half will never have heard any such thing. When someone points out that Obama has Marxists in his cabinet, say as part of an argument about how left wing his administration is, you'll hear, "What the hell are you talking about?"

[Ordr]

It *might* have, if they had ever been told. The mainstream media won't report it. The media that does report it is obviously just a bunch of right-wing buffoons like "Faux" news. Obviously anything on "Faux" news is just false.

If this woman gets confirmed, half of the country will know she was a Marxist and the other half will never have heard any such thing. When someone points out that Obama has Marxists in his cabinet, say as part of an argument about how left wing his administration is, you'll hear, "What the hell are you talking about?"

That's a good point, Steve. In fact, since the source is Fox (and linked from JunkScience), I've decided it's pointless to even bother emailing this to friends/family who are Obama fans simply because once they see the source, they'll immediately either stop reading or just discount it as "right-wing propaganda". And, even if they do read it, I can hear it now: "Well it's pretty obvious capitalism isn't working because of the economy...maybe we need her perspective to get back on track."

[Steve D'Ippolito]

The fact of the matter is that there are two completely different news media in this country, and those that follow the "mainstream" media simply give no credence to the "right wing" media.

Going back to 2004, that election should have been a blowout in Bush's favor. There was enough evidence that Kerry was basically a leftist anti-American that IF the mainstream media had reported it, he would have been buried. (And this is the main reason I *would not* vote for him in particular.)

The media (either side) does not even have to outright lie and fabricate to distort things in this country, and it's rare that they do (Dan Rather aside). They simply ignore things that they don't want Joe Voter to know. And this is why the Left feels so threatened by "Right Wing" talk radio. It doesn't work as well when the monopoly is not absolute.

[~Sophia~]

In case you tried to find her name on SI website - I found this:

Until last week, Carol M. Browner, President-elect Barack Obama's pick as global warming czar, was listed as one of 14 leaders of a socialist group's Commission for a Sustainable World Society, which calls for "global governance" and says rich countries must shrink their economies to address climate change.

By Thursday, Mrs. Browner's name and biography had been removed from Socialist International's Web page, though a photo of her speaking June 30 to the group's congress in Greece was still available.

Also this is the same woman (she is a former EPA administrator) who is responsible for banning emergency CFC- powered inhalers (millions of asthma sufferers can no longer legally get them since Jan 1, 2009). People report that the new, "environmentally friendly" type makes them cough until they vomit and I think there has been at least one death reported already. (you can find more if you google her name and cfc inhalers)

Edited January 16, 2009 by ~Sophia~

[Mammon]

So, what do you want this to mean? That Obama is definitely out to get the free-market because he knows about it's strength and his maniacal drive to power urges him to control this wonderful allocator of resources? That he is only saying it to get votes? That he just doesn't know what to say?

Take your pick.

Wow, I called the entire rest of the thread here. *pats self on back*

How would you categorize him, Mammon?

A centrist with some left leanings. More likely to compromise and listen then stubbornly and blindly go into something. Trusts people way too much.

I can imagine Obama is looking to skate through the next 4-8 years, with GWB, Congress and the American capitalist as his enduring scapegoats, and that his eye is, before he has even taken the office of the POTUS, on the next game: President of the world, or whatever name they dream up for that global body over the next few years. One necessary means to secure the creation of that office is to end the hope that America has historically given the people of the world. His policies promise to do exactly that, and GWB and Congress have given him a great start.

Welcome to the new world order.

You know, that's exactly what all the leftists, 9/11 Truthers and Islamists said about Bush. And if I'm not mistaken he just gave a farewell speech and will be out of Office after this weekend. Why is Obama different?

Plus parts of the scenario you described would be highly ideal actually.

How was this not discovered sooner?

Ha! I knew about this for weeks, I though it was common knowledge around here. You guys need to do your homework!

[~Sophia~]

Another excellent article by Mr. Cline An Inauguration of Tyranny

[Ordr]

Another excellent article by Mr. Cline An Inauguration of Tyranny

I want to hug Edward Cline.

[megr.ferg]

Very nice.

Edited January 21, 2009 by megr.ferg

[aequalsa]

Another excellent article by Mr. Cline An Inauguration of Tyranny

That was almost HL Menckenish. Damn near misanthropic. (not a complaint )

[Maximus]

I want to hug Edward Cline.

I wouldn't go that far, but I'd damn sure shake his hand.

[Ordr]

I wouldn't go that far, but I'd damn sure shake his hand.

That's what I meant.

(I think.)

[Yes]

What remains to be seen is just how closely Obama will adhere to and be able to implement his socialist philosophy.

The entire discussion of Obama as Marxist is such nonsense that it has given me the impression that a low level of intelligence permeates both this board and the commentators who contribute to Capitalism magazine.

I will say this, and I could give a damn whether you clowns want to flame me or not on this opinion-

Obama is no more "socialist" than Wilson, Coolidge, Hoover, Truman, Nixon, Reagan, or either Bush. In fact, he is obliged by the Constitution to uphold the law by oath.

That being said, Obama has inherited the mixed governmental system of his predecessors- that which was started even prior to Wilson's enactment of the income tax, and was augmented by FDR's administration.

It is a tall order to expect any president to "grow" government given the fact that no funding is available to do so. It is a great challenge to the Obama administration for them to force government to, as Obama has stated in several speeches, "make government accountable" and to force government to make those sacrifices that all of us have been forced by our individual circumstances to make.

[Yes]

I would like to bring to your attention an excellent post, I just read, by Edward Cline Of Piracy and Politics

Much of Edward Cline's sorry article is based upon supposition. He fequently cites Obama as being a part of the Chicago political machine as though Obama was born and raised by it. Thus he bases Obama's agenda as though he were the second coming of Adolf Hitler.

His critique of Republicans is, in comparison, lacking.

It is my view that Edward Cline is an irrational madman. Shake his hand? I'd sooner toss this perverted intellectual to the curb.

[aequalsa]

The entire discussion of Obama as Marxist is such nonsense that it has given me the impression that a low level of intelligence permeates both this board and the commentators who contribute to Capitalism magazine.

I will say this, and I could give a damn whether you clowns want to flame me or not on this opinion-

Obama is no more "socialist" than Wilson, Coolidge, Hoover, Truman, Nixon, Reagan, or either Bush. In fact, he is obliged by the Constitution to uphold the law by oath.

That being said, Obama has inherited the mixed governmental system of his predecessors- that which was started even prior to Wilson's enactment of the income tax, and was augmented by FDR's administration.

It is a tall order to expect any president to "grow" government given the fact that no funding is available to do so. It is a great challenge to the Obama administration for them to force government to, as Obama has stated in several speeches, "make government accountable" and to force government to make those sacrifices that all of us have been forced by our individual circumstances to make.

I've been running into this redefinition of socialism a lot. I have two questions for you. What do you think socialism is? And, would you consider Obama to be a friend of the free market.

[Jake_Ellison]

Much of Edward Cline's sorry article is based upon supposition.

Name the supposition and the specific thing which it supporsts in the article.

Like this:

1.The supposition, in your words.

.................

2.

The quote from the article, which is there unsupported by things Obama said or did.

.

Then, we'll have a chance to agree with you or contradict you. Until then, all I can respond to your post is this: You brought no arguments. I don't take into consideration opinions which are presented without any arguments.

[khaight]

Obama is no more "socialist" than Wilson, Coolidge, Hoover, Truman, Nixon, Reagan, or either Bush. In fact, he is obliged by the Constitution to uphold the law by oath.

Is there any need for me to point out that this is a complete non-sequitur? Merely because someone takes an oath to defend the Constitution does not mean that he will actually do so. A person's political classification is based on the ideas he expresses, and the policies he advocates and implements. On that basis, it is clear that Obama is no friend of freedom. He is, as I mentioned up-thread, a thorough altruist, collectivist and statist. He looks to be the anti-Reagan -- he thinks government is the solution. (I'm not sure it matters to him what the problem is.)

[SD26]

He is, as I mentioned up-thread, a thorough altruist, collectivist and statist. He looks to be the anti-Reagan -- he thinks government is the solution. (I'm not sure it matters to him what the problem is.)

Completely agreed. In his concept of what he is to do, government is the hero to the individual rather than individuals being their own hero...even though government is the one taking from actual productive "heroes" in the market place to support those that aren't moving forward in life.

[FeatherFall]

So, what do you want this to mean? That Obama is definitely out to get the free-market because he knows about it's strength and his maniacal drive to power urges him to control this wonderful allocator of resources? That he is only saying it to get votes? That he just doesn't know what to say?

Take your pick.

Wow, I called the entire rest of the thread here. *pats self on back*

I don't think the interview quote you provided was so á propos to this discussion that subsequent posts which disregarded it could be analogous enough to the characature responses you formulated to warrant a pat on your back.

Here is something that interests me:

You know, that's exactly what all the leftists, 9/11 Truthers and Islamists said about Bush. And if I'm not mistaken he just gave a farewell speech and will be out of Office after this weekend. Why is Obama different?

Plus parts of the scenario you described would be highly ideal actually.

Agrippa1's statement struck me as hyperbole. Obama could court the UN for a Secretary Generalship after he leaves office, but that would seem to be the foreseeable extent of his plans for world domination. I don't however, see why any of the things agrippa1 described would be ideal.

Ha! I knew about this for weeks, I though it was common knowledge around here. You guys need to do your homework!

Why didn't you tell us!? It seems to me you don't deserve any glory for keeping us in the dark. What is your opinion of her, anyway? Do you think that her previous affiliation with Socialist International is good, bad or unimportant?

[FeatherFall]

A person's political classification is based on the ideas he expresses, and the policies he advocates and implements. On that basis, it is clear that Obama is no friend of freedom. He is, as I mentioned up-thread, a thorough altruist, collectivist and statist.

I like this evaluation.

I think that statist is the rhetorical label to use. To small-government types it is self-explanatory enough to be recognized and inflammatory enough to excite. To a lot of people it is an unknown label that will pique their interest (my spell check doesn't even recognize it). For people who haven't heard the term, explaining what it means is an interesting way to get past the man's mistique to address a topic more fundamental and memorable.

[Maximus]

Why didn't you tell us!? It seems to me you don't deserve any glory for keeping us in the dark.

Anyone can claim foreknowledge after the fact. I'd be more impressed had he offered this information before someone else posted it.

"Me too, me too!"

[Mammon]

Another excellent article by Mr. Cline An Inauguration of Tyranny

This is one of the worst things I've ever read. I read it the day Sophia posted it and I haven't had time to write what I thought, but it was bothering me so much I'm just going to do it. I'll specifically quote what I'm talking about. Given the sheer amount of crap this guy wrote, it's going to be a lot.

Watching news media coverage of Barack Obama’s journey to the White House was much like watching the broadcast propaganda of a dystopian fantasy in films like V, or the Richard Burton’s 1984, or Fahrenheit 451 -- except that the news media is not a vast government department spewing out lies and disinformation, haranguing and brow-beating the public, but a nominally independent entity reporting Obama’s triumph with deliriously mindless happy talk. For all practical purposes, the news media have largely surrendered the sovereignty of the freedom of the press in exchange for the emotional solicitude of “hope” and the privilege of being a demagogue’s mouthpiece. That so many viewers and listeners disagree or are skeptical of what the news media has reported about Obama are blithely ignored by editorial writers and news anchors is a measure of media bias. We wish it to be so; ergo, it is true. He is our savior, our Messiah, our Leader. He will show us the way.

In the first sentence, the first thing he has to do is equate Obama with something negative. This is tone for the entire article. Could it be that the media is just doing their job, which is to report stuff? No, it's "mindless happy talk"! Well guess what? It's Inauguration Day. It's a celebration, and a ceremony it's time to have more positive talk. It's like New Years, except it only happens every 4 to 8 years, which makes it historically significant and thats why they have generally positive commentary about the history of the event. Are people not allowed to be interested or happy about that? I'm not for sure what would make Cline happy here. If the commentary was something a long the lines of "Obama blinked twice in 10 seconds, that means he wants to enslave America!"... Which is actually, pretty close to his own commentary!

At a cost of over $150 million, the inauguration of January 20th had the character of a royal coronation (or a biblical pageant, if you will), witnessed by millions in Washington and on television by millions around the world, secured by 8,000 police, 11,000 military personnel, 1,000 park rangers, and countless plainclothesmen, and reported by a euphoric press. The millions who thronged or thrilled to see Obama become the 44th president of the United States are comfortable with the idea of being ruled, of being told what to do and why to live -- and with the idea of seeing those who neither need nor want rulers overruled.

A lot of people showed up to this and watched it. Yes, that's true. Because it's not something that happens every day. Are people not allowed to be interested in something rare and historic? Are they not allowed to show support for their country by watching it's elected leader get sworn in? At the last sentence here shows the answer is "NO!" ... If you watched the Inauguration you have to be someone who wants to be ruled over. Really? Here is where Cline begins to make himself up to be an omniscient deity. He knows what's going on in the heads of millions of people. It just so happens that all these people are wrong. Unlike the Enlightened Mr. Cline who bestows his wisdom down on us mere mortals in even more projections, free interpretations and postulating.

Having written extensively on America’s Revolutionary period in fiction and nonfiction

Here is where I discovered the problem. He can't discern fact from fiction here. He can project his fantasies all over the world here and can't see past them. He needs to cast someone as the villain of the story he's making up in his head. So of course it's our newly elected Democrat President. Let us keep this in mind as we read further.

I took special and personal offense to Obama’s Philadelphia speech on January 17th, in which he appropriated the Revolution without once mentioning the ideas that made it possible.

You took personal offense because someone didn't say the words you wanted to hear? Cry me a river.

In that speech, he turned those unnamed ideas inside out, pronouncing the words “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” but meaning entirely different things by them. Your “life,” he said or implied, is not entirely your own, but your neighbor’s or the nation’s; your “liberty,” he suggested, exists as long it is regulated if not otherwise prohibited; your “pursuit of happiness,” he insisted, is possible but not before you serve and sacrifice for the good and happiness of all.

I'd like direct quotes here, please. Not your projections and your attempts to put those words in the man's mouth. This is where any respect I had for this writer because instead of showing Obama saying these things, he is just insisting he believes, implies, or means these things. Things which Cline doesn't like. Because Obama has to be bad. He is the villain of the story here. Cline can rewrite reality to make it mean whatever he wants it to mean.

You lose all credibility with language like this, but he continues and even acknowledges it...

Lest it be thought that I am putting words into his mouth or twisting his meaning, read the transcripts of all of Obama’s campaign and acceptance speeches, and it will be seen that he is no friend of life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness -- qua individual rights. Obama’s speeches have always been a broth of rhetorical ambiguities and populist language addressed to the worst in men, concealing an intention to rule, to decree, to govern like a prince with the unqualified leave of his subjects.

Of course, of course... just read his transcripts. Make sure you interpret them to mean whatever you feel like. As long as you interpret it to mean that Obama want's to be some sort of evil tyrant, dictator, or overlord then your correct. It can't be anything good or positive.

Those ambiguities and populist parts are meant to appeal to a wider audience. The speeches are designed that way. You can project what you want onto Obama. In the case of Cline it's "BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD!!!" Again, Cline is omniscient and knows what Obama is really thinking, which is naturally the absolute worse things. Again, he asserts Obama wants to rule, but where does he back any of this up? It's just pure speculation, postulating and projecting.

I could write like this guy,

"Edward Cline is a racist and a Republican talking head. All one has to do is look at everything he says. All of his books have always been broth with inflammatory and accusative language addressed to the worst in men, concealing an intention to be a cool leader of the new Revolution against the new Tyrant-in-chief and to be loved and worshiped as a freedom-fighting hero!"

If I wrote that, the member of this board and the saner people in the world would probably scold me for it. Yet this guy can get away with it.

Obama’s admirers and supporters constitute a people who do not want to be free, and who do not want anyone else to be free. Allowing their emotions to govern their minimal thought and their actions, they have endorsed his notion that everyone must be tied in servitude and sacrifice to everyone else to “work together” for a “more perfect union.” Further, they view themselves as “victims,” and he has been the salve of their troubled souls.

And it gets worse and worse. Here he throws everyone into a big group which, of course, has to be thoughtless. He knows the minds of millions of people apparently. And this the only reason to like Obama. If your a horribly stupid human being. It can't be for any other reason, can it Mr. Cline?

This type of language litters the rest of the sorry excuse of an article. Obama has "worshipers" apparently. I have to divide it here for fear of running out of quote brackets.

[Mammon]

I have argued for years that the Founders created a republic and were hostile to the idea of a democracy. Obama’s victory is a perilous instance of democracy in action. A majority of the electorate wished for bread and circuses. He has promised them bread and circuses.

Again, they voted for Obama because they wanted hand-outs! There can be no other reason. It can't be because people looked at the country, saw the shape it was in, who was leading it and decided the other guys might do a better job. In Edward Clineverse there is no reason to vote for Obama unless you are a mindless worshiper of the man who wants hand-outs.

An examination of his Philadelphia speech, however, is in order. That speech, like his past speeches and those of so many other power-seekers, is a conceptual mess

Oh good, you're going to actually use the persons words this time, instead of just telling us what he thinks and having us just believe your accusations on faith! And of course, you can't leave out the fact that Obama is a power-seeker. You have to make that perfectly clear and we have to faith in your omniscience once again.

A line by line critique may be interesting, but fruitless.

Of course, you can just leave out what contradicts your revisions here. It would be inconvenient to actually let people see the entire context. Then again, what a loss? I'm sure you can point out how Obama's use of the word "they" is a call for collectivist, altruistic, statist control over every single facet and second of everyones lives. Because, as you told us over and over again that's Obama's intent.

“They” were just a group of “farmers and lawyers, merchants and soldiers,” in addition to “fishermen, laborers, and craftsmen,” who somehow, for some reason, assembled to sign the Declaration, out of loyalty to a “set of ideals.” Which ideals? Private property? Freedom of speech? Ownership of their own lives? Ideals that they plucked from a tree? And how do those unnamed ideals continue to “light the world,” when statism and collectivism are on the rise around the globe?

Are we all “equal,” or equal before the law? And, before which laws? Objective laws that protect and ensure individual rights, or non-objective laws that rob us of those rights and surrender us to the unpredictable whims of arbitrary authority? And, no, those rights do not come from “our maker,” they come from a recognition of the nature of man as a being of volitional consciousness who must employ reason to survive, establish his goals and pursue them. Rights do not originate with ghosts, majority rule, or pragmatism.

Translation: "I'm mad because he didn't give the speech in the same way I would have and he didn't say what I wanted to hear. Therefore I'm just going to say what I want it to mean, and throw in some words and concepts Objectivists are familiar with and call it a day."

It is the height of narcissism that Obama would steal from Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, as well, and change the meaning of that president’s words.

Narcissism. It's not a clever tribute. It's not anything else. It's narcissism. I wonder if he was looking for a way to use that word the entire time? Just another way to paint Obama as being bad.

The economy is faltering because of government interventionist policies.

Really?! How original. I never would of thought of that if you hadn't mentioned it. I mean, WOW. You are so original! That's an insight no one has ever made before! Why didn't Ayn Rand think of that!?

The two wars were against the wrong enemies; one can be certain that Obama will be as wrong-headed about those enemies as was Bush.

Yes, one can be certain indeed, because Obama=bad. Everything he says is bad, everything he does is bad, everything he touches turns bad. The other day someone died... It's because of Obama eat breakfast. 9/11 happened because of Obama. Obama killed the dinosaurs, and the Obama created Hitler! So you can be definitely certain he will be wrong-headed. Everything bad in history happened because of Obama!

And our dependence on oil would be sustainable if we had free markets, if the government were prohibited from making deals with dictatorships, medieval monarchies and other tin pot regimes, and if the government were constrained from having any role in the economy. Economies are not created by governments; they can only be taken over by them, as ours has been incrementally for over a century.

Copy, paste, copy, paste, copy, paste. Assert, assert, assert, assert. Make sure you say what every other Objectivist says and say it in a way that you expect people to just know this.

This is an especially significant paragraph. What Obama is stating is that the nation needs a declaration of independence from the Declaration of Independence, that is, from the ideas or ideology that made the Declaration possible, and from “small thinking,” a code term for selfishness. He is willing to draft that new declaration into a manifesto of “responsibility,” that is, the “responsibility“ of Americans to become a selfless zombie population moved by “giving,” “caring,” “service“ to a cause “higher“ than oneself, and “self-sacrifice.”

"What" "Obama" "is" "stating" "is" "whatever" "Edward" "Cline" "wants" "us" "to" "think", "or" "whatever" "he" "feels" "like" "intrepreting" "it" "as".

The term struggle appears in every collectivist manifesto of the 20th century that I know of. Hitler used it, Mao, Lenin, Castro and other dictators used it, not to mention Basque separatists and the IRA, to name but two other murderous movements. It must also occur somewhere in Saul Alinsky’s books on “community activism,” which Obama plans to implement on a national scale. More prominently today, it is employed by Islamic jihadists. It is a euphemism for force and terror, and the password for establishing totalitarianism.

He definitely couldn't do without making sure he associated Obama with every major evil in the last century. Couldn't leave that part out, in fact, he does it twice. That's a really shallow way to make a case there. "Obama uses a word that bad people use." This entire paragraph is just a list of noted evils which people are going to have a negative reaction to, and he makes sure to have Obama's name in there too. The leftists do the same thing with Bush.

A serial killer said "eggs" one time ... everyone who says "eggs" is now a serial killer.

Over all, the point is that his analysis is very shallow. It's just blatant smearing and it's not even written very good. Yet, this is what I see happening for the next four years. Dozens and dozens of Obama=bad articles coming from Objectivist writers and scores of Objectivists repeating what was said in those articles over and over again. Cline's calling the man a Tyrant before he even does anything. Do you think that's a little unobjective?

I'm sick of the groupthink. People like Cline have it in their minds what they want to believe and will evade and actively search for anything to make them reality conform to their visions. Not the other way around. It's subjectivist and the fact that so many people do it, makes it collectivist, and the fact that he shows no signs of actually considering anything different shows he is not using reason. To me, Cline is doing everything Objectivism warns against.

It's just dumb. The article holds as much water as a dessert and Cline comes off as a hack.

[Mammon]

I don't think the interview quote you provided was so á propos to this discussion that subsequent posts which disregarded it could be analogous enough to the characature responses you formulated to warrant a pat on your back.

I said people would take it to mean something bad and they did. What does that mean when responses are so predictable?

Agrippa1's statement struck me as hyperbole.

I'm pretty for sure he means everything he says.

Obama could court the UN for a Secretary Generalship after he leaves office, but that would seem to be the foreseeable extent of his plans for world domination. I don't however, see why any of the things agrippa1 described would be ideal.

A.) Obama can't get Secretary Generalship because the United States is on the Security Council, which means that no one from that country can get the job.

B.) If the world recognizes one leader and will follow that person. That's a huge achievement and step in the right direction.

Why didn't you tell us!? It seems to me you don't deserve any glory for keeping us in the dark. What is your opinion of her, anyway? Do you think that her previous affiliation with Socialist International is good, bad or unimportant?

I didn't tell her because I have a fucking life and I don't have a duty to run here and tell you guys things that are right there for you to see just like I did. The fact that no posts showed up that day about it made me think you guys already knew. I figured you guys would stay on top of things.

She's the wrong choice. What more is there to say?

Edited January 25, 2009 by Mammon

[kainscalia]

Counselor Troi senses... tension, Mammon. Tell us how you really feel about Obama.

People dislike him because they dislike the ideas behind his propaganda, ideas he has been very clear about: redistribution of wealth, socialized healthcare, and an overall socialist America. You can cry foul as much as you want, but the fact is that everything Obama has said and done points towards a socialist agenda for his government, and that is precisely how Cline is seeing him: his actions, his words and his propaganda come into the focus cast by the very ideas he defends - or pretends to defend. The ideas of class struggle, service to the government (as in the most recent video, "I pledge to be a servant to the president"), and handouts for all are a inseparable a part of the public persona of Barack Obama as is the color of his skin- in fact it is rather worrysome how so many people claimed that their vote wasn't won by the fact that Obama was black, and yet the first thing I heard from one of such people when he won was "We have our first black president!"

If race wasn't really an issue at all, then the fact that Obama was black wouldn't have mattered at all, but rather his ideas -such as they are- would have taken center stage. Cline dislikes Obama for many of the reasons other objectivists (myself included) do: He is a posterboy that plays coquette with the "Che" socialist image, panders to inverse racism and plays his race card subtly enough that you can't call him on it without a public outcry, and maintains a long-winded discourse centered around sacrifice, service, surrender and how other people are much more important than you. Objectivists are funny that way- we like individualism, freedom, property rights, and government out of our private lives as much as possible -- Obama, on the other hand? "You know I don’t know when, when they decided they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness."

He's got a polished veneer and a slick presentation, he's eloquent and then there are the washboard abs over which the media has gone crazy. He hasn't done anything of note, having just been inaugurated, but he already has taken over half of the magazines in my local bookstore- including Dog Lover magazine, where he poses with some ridiculous canine that looks like a cross between a mop and a sponge. People fall for his charm, and because America has now a syndrome of deifying the presidency (I call it the "King Arthur Syndrome") and expecting messiahs when all they should be expecting is public servants whose job should be keeping the political sewage clear and the plumbing to a minimum, Obama is a star without really having any merit to the claim-- he is 'electable' in an age where sound bytes and a handsome face will carry you far. If I may speak operatically (as is my profession), I am currently singing the role of Nemorino in the Donizetti opera "L'Elisir D'Amore", and if we consider America to be Nemorino, then Obama is the slick Doctor Dulcamara, who dazzles, postures and offers magical elixirs, restoratives and poppets to the gullible who are taken in by his slick and dashing presentation. People who are accustomed to think about things prefer to go deeper, to the meat and bones: what ideas and principles motivate a wannabe leader. In that arena Obama has expressed distaste for the idea of people having control over their own money (hence the "spread the wealth around" statements and ideas for wealth redistribution), he is obviously a fan of bigger government and frequent government intrusion into the financial and private sectors (bailout support, anti free market stance), and he's definitely a posterboy for XXI Century Socialism.

With all that being a blatant part of his platform, plus the race issue, you have the following people who could have voted for Obama:

1) People who dig his socialist message and like the idea of a paternalist government and government hangouts. In other words, LEECHES.

2) People who voted for him because he's black, whether this was a primary or secondary reason is irrelevant, what is relevant is therefore that it was a reason or incentive at all. In other words, RACISTS and TRIBALISTS.

3) People who were taken in by the razzle dazzle and who usually refuse to think deeper or at all. In other words, FOOLS.

4) People who want 'change', seeing what the past presidencies have done, and thinking that Obama will bring the change, whatever they may mean by 'change'-- this ranges from people who know very little about his platform to people who know it by heart and support it. So you have a gamut here of FOOLS all the way to SOCIALISTS/LEECHES.

5) People who voted for him out of guilt, peer pressure, etc. In other words FOOLS.

So no, not all of the people who voted for Obama were out for a handout. However, none of the people who voted for Obama could be said to be proud of their avoidance of thinking (in the case of the fools and the ignorant), or that they are non-malevolent (in the case of the socialists, racists, tribalists and collectivists). However, Cline may have chosen that group because it seems to be the most numerous- among the many Obama supporters I spoke to and questioned during the campaign a recurring emerging theme were the aforementioned handouts, government help, welfare, etcetera. I'd say four out of six people who favored Obama knew very well that those taxpayer dollars were destined for handouts, and more importantly handouts from which they could reap some benefit.