Michael Moore has , it seems, decided that the democrat corporatism can “crush” the republican corporatism if they can convince Michelle Obama to run as their candidate for president in opposition to the republican’s racist frat-ass Donald Trump. This promotional material by Moore is a very revealing contemporary manifestation of what has been, for a long time, a perverse method of operating by the democrats.
I must admit that I agree with Mr. Moore on two points.
One point being that none of the people currently seeking to become the democrat nominee for president in 2020 are capable of convincing me that they could or would be able to, in any necessary way, change the corrupt system which is exemplified by Trump’s ugly, arrogant “america”-first, privately corporately manipulated, crap. The biggest problem however, is that the candidates who Moore has decided are lacking the ability to “crush” Trump are clearly all typical examples of what it means to be a democrat. There is not one of these candidates who is ready to create a party which might effectively oppose the militarizing capitalist republicanism which the democrat party and the republican party worship together. If they were, they would certainly NOT be members of the democrat’s (and republican’s) organized system of mandatory inequality and preferential treatment of private power. All of these candidates lack the necessary adherence to the belief that equal justice and a healthy environment require – at a minimum – that private capital must be subservient to the needs of those with the least power and that nationalistic patriotism insures that insiders (citizens) as well as outsiders (foreigners) will remain trapped in a sadomasochistic abusiveness.
The other point where I agree with Moore is that Michelle Obama could “crush” Trump and win the election. The problem is that the reason she could win is that Michelle Obama is in a position much like Trump was in 2016. The attempt by Moore to portray her as a “street fighter” is a deliberate misrepresentation of her recent history and, as has been the case with her husband and every other recent presidential candidate promoted by both the democrats and the republicans, misrepresentation of the character of their standard bearer is a mandatory prerequisite to manipulate the suckers into believing that each of these insiders is a maverick or a savior when they are not. There is nothing which would indicate that making Michelle Obama into a presidential candidate is anything beyond playing the same game again. Michael Moore wants us to believe that Michelle Obama’s popularity is a proof that she would be something more than just another prettified jockey riding their preferred corporate-owned horse. Trump had his suckers who believed much the same about him in 2016. Certainly Michelle Obama has a much more appealing personality and sense of style, but so did her warmongering, corporately privatizing husband.
So Moore is trying to find a way to save the corporately controlled democrat machinery from their long history of embarrassingly revealing spectacles of trying to openly appeal to the mean, arrogantly crass capitalists (as they did with the Clintons) and make people focus on someone whose affluence appears to be (stylishly) shiny and new. Moore wants to make the democrats look better than they are. This is the same sort of crap as when he cleverly worked to make it look as if the war against Iraq was less of a bipartisan project than it actually was and that the blame should be on the Bush administration while downplaying the fact that democrats, like Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and John Kerry had played significant roles in making the vicious slaughter happen. He wants people to swallow the ridiculous notion that Michelle Obama would effectively challenge a system by which she gained her celebrity. Maybe she would, but there is a scarcity of evidence to support that assumption (and Moore’s enthusiasm).
It seems that people who identify as democrat or republican need to embrace a willful blindness. On some of the worst assaults against human rights and equal justice perpetrated during the administration of George W. Bush, Barack Obama – as a US senator – would state his opposition to those assaults and then, turn around, and help make them happen. His skin color seems to have been a shield of immunity to his devoted and hypocritical supporters (many of whom still insist that Obama’s own predatory administration was some sort of break from the predatory scheming which it repeatedly reinforced through misrepresentation and obfuscations). If Michelle Obama is a “street fighter,” as Moore would have us believe, where is the record of her opposition to her own husband’s cunningly militarizing corporatism and where was her opposition to the militant corporatism of Hillary Clinton?
No, Obama does not rhyme with Obama. Rhyming words do so only when they are different words. “Obama” is a repetition of “Obama” and the fact that Moore wants us to believe that the name “rhymes” with itself is a clear indication that he is pumping gas into another flimsy balloon as a distraction from what really needs to happen.
At this point in time, a win by Michelle Obama is being invested with unwarranted descriptions by Michael Moore and these beliefs are a form of desperation whereby those who foolishly identify as democrats can ignore their own history of hypocrisy and fearfully delusional, passionate limitations. For democrats and republicans, real evidence is for losers when it comes to the possibility of boiling over in passionate delusions.
Hope and Change 2.0 has a long way to go in order to rise above gimmickry, just like the rest of the democrats who want to be president (but whom Moore would dump in favor of his delusional desire for a shinier- looking insider).
The answer we need is not within the democrats or republicans and their shared religion of capitalist domination over life. One wording which does rhyme with Obama is more trauma. Many may be repulsed by Trump, but they still cling to the system which enables such a repulsive manifestation.