Friday, March 11, 2011

Mike Huckabee, Obama and Natalie Portman

Huckabee may dive into the 2012 POTUS water.
On the other hand, he may not.
If he announces, he quickly loses $500,000-$1 million in income.
He has strong support among social conservatives, and likely would do well in the Southern primaries.
He is also a good communicator, with an “ol’ shucks” Southern persona.
He constantly attacks Obama, and went further than usual last week.
He borrowed Dinesh D’Souza’s thesis (in The Roots of Obama’s Rage) that the best way to understand Obama’s mindset is through his anti-colonial African heritage.
But Huck mistakenly stated that Obama grew up in Kenya, and is strongly influenced by his Mau Mau (anti-colonial) grandfather.
Neither is true.
The rightwing has grabbed D’Souza’s book, and is using it to put Obama into a narrow ideological box.. that Obama is not one of us; that he is foreign; and that he is an alien agent in control of our government.
It is so tiresome. I don’t know where Huck and the rightwing sees rage in Obama. To progressives, the POTUS lacks sufficient rage; is too smooth and nice; and as one suggests, it is a question of finding Waldo in Obama.

Huck also attacked the actress Natalie Portman, for being (at least now) a single pregnant mother-to-be.
Huck cleverly framed his argument in rightwing populist terms. Portman is wealthy, and will have no problem supporting her child.
But , as Huck proclaimed, millions of women are single, poor, and having children out-of-wedlock.
This is true.
But Huck becomes hypocritical when he allegedly opposes birth control ,sex education and other programs that help single women. He also supports federal de-funding of Planned Parenthood.

I predict Huck will NOT enter the 2012 race.

No comments: