Skip to: Content
Skip to: Site Navigation
Skip to: Search

SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 2009
| Subscribe to Newser's RSS feeds RSS | Follow Newser on Twitter Twitter

OFF THE GRID
Oct 27, 09 | 8:58 AM

Is Obama a Sleaze?

Share
So it turns out there’s a reason the president hasn’t wrapped up health care or Iraq, figured out Afghanistan, closed Guantanamo, or found anybody a job. He’s been out raising money.

He’s been schmoozing, and golfing, and kissing ass.

The Wall Street Journal has outlined in quite excruciating detail just how the president has actually been spending a significant amount of his time and attention. In nine months he’s done 26 fundraisers. Three a month.

George Bush, by this point in his presidency, had, according to the Journal, only done six. The Journal says Obama’s hyper-fundraising is because of McCain-Feingold, which limits soft money contributions. Obama has got to do more to raise more. George Bush raised $48 million with his six fundraisers; Obama, so far, has only raised $21 million.

He’s not just been on his belly, but on his belly for a relative pittance.

It’s important to be clear on just exactly what this operation is: The president of the United States is slavishly stroking rich guys. He’s listening to their dumbass (and dull) opinions, he’s laughing at their lame jokes, he’s cultivating their secret ambitions.

He’s becoming their friend.

It’s a bit of Stockholm syndrome. He’s their prisoner—they can do with him what they will. He is dependent on them for his existence. Nothing less. Ipso facto, he comes, quite naturally, to enjoy them, to appreciate them, to see them, these men with his future in their hands, as really, really charming and brilliant guys.

This is what ruined Bill Clinton. He became an entertainer for the rich. Their buddy.

Part of the appeal of Barack Obama has been that it was hard to imagine him in this role. The skinny black guy would not fit in with these over-stuffed suits. His aloofness would not allow him to suck up. And he had the Internet: With all that money pouring in he didn’t need the fat cats.

But 26 fundraisers later he’s undoubtedly transformed himself into a true crony of the liberal rich. At this rate, he’ll do nearly a 140 in his first term; and he’ll have to double that to match George Bush’s take.

I wonder if you can actually recover from this? If it doesn’t necessarily make you into a desperate man and a profound cynic? At some level, you must either accept the fact that you’re dirty, or, in the interest of denial, come to believe that these guys are really your brothers.

You lose your sense of pride and sense of self when you beg people for money. Not just because they want something and will surely get something for what they give you. But because you have to convince yourself that that’s not the case.

Still, you’re not a whore. Worse: You actually fall in love with these men.

More of Newser founder Michael Wolff's articles and commentary can be found at VanityFair.com, where he writes a regular column. He can be emailed at michael@newser.com. You can also follow him on Twitter: www.twitter.com/NewserColumns.
31 comments
VIEWING:
 
I_hate_to_say
Oct 27, 09 12:11 PM CDT
Nauseating, vicious spin in the worst Roger Ailes, Karl Rove style. After reading this I feel like I just cleaned all the public toilets in the bus station with a toothbrush and a cotton ball. Sounds like someone has profound personal experience with deep infatuation for malefactors of great wealth. Just what were all those interviews with Rupert really like? Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
IN RESPONSE:
QueenAlli
Oct 27, 09 12:21 PM CDT
Ease up on Mr. Wolff, he's just trying to be provocative. :)
Vote up! Vote down!
0
IN RESPONSE:
kokuaguy
Oct 27, 09 12:35 PM CDT
I think that nasty little rug rat knows how to play the game as well, Queen. But hate to say has a point. This screed will end up as part of Limbaugh's and Beck's talking points, no doubt. And though there is always an element of authenticity in every great artificial construct, the picture Woolf paints here is grossly out of proportion.
Vote up! Vote down!
0
citygirl
Oct 27, 09 12:12 PM CDT
Confusing message. And the bad guys are: liberal rich, conservative rich or just rich? Do't liberal rich want to close GB and end Afgan war? Elaborate on teh agenda, the "rich" wants Obama to push. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+5
IN RESPONSE:
Deebles
Oct 29, 09 1:43 AM CDT
Boy, do you not get it? No conservatives and no liberals--just the people , not you getting rich. We Democrats just roiled with anguish as the rich, repubs got richer. Well, now the rich Democrats are getting richer. Oh, wait--did you think that this was about something other than your not getting rich? Oh, my. You must be hurt. If, you let that hurt fester and grow and didn't kill it by watching the channel that reaffirms your false reality--whether liberal or conservative- we, the people not getting rich whether it is Bush, Clinton, Bush or Obama could have a chance. But, we will all be dust soon, because no one--not one single person in this bipartisan country will say the simple words--'that Bush, what an ass hole', or 'that Obama, what an ass hole'. How do you think I feel? I see you guys fighting it out to be right when everyone is wrong, and I get to vaporize with you dumb butts--bummer. I yearn for George Washington who said that political parties are just things that people latch onto to feel that they got a clue. Or, sorta. He actually said that they would be our downfall--pretty smart for a guy with wooden teeth. So, watch your spitting Olberman and think Beck is an idiot and vice versa when the only idiot is you watching trying to pay that 1200 buck mortgage while they make ten million a year. And they know the one thing that you don't--you are never, ever gonna make their money. But, they collect a check on the fact that you think that your idea of America whether on Fox or MSNBC is gonna pay out for you. Optimism at its most lethal.
Vote up! Vote down!
-2
IN RESPONSE:
citygirl
Oct 29, 09 8:06 AM CDT
What optimism are you referring to, Deebles? All presidents are owned by some sort of rich. Thinking otherwise is naive.
Vote up! Vote down!
0
IN RESPONSE:
Deebles
Nov 4, 09 10:17 PM CST
Citygirl. When someone writes a comment about the naivety of people not understanding that all their leaders are sorta compromised--you can't respond with 'you are naive for not getting what you just wrote'. You are obviously someone who I'm supposed to respect, but it scares me just a wee bit that you read me without understanding. Either I'm a horrible writer, or you aren't a clever reader. Neither choice amuses me.
Vote up! Vote down!
-1
QueenAlli
Oct 27, 09 12:17 PM CDT
THREE a month? Jesus Christ! handcuff the man to his desk! To be perfectly honest I want the Dems to win next year and I want them to have the money to kick the GOP's ass --- so this THREE a month fundraiser gate doesn't bother me. Politicians taking donations from the rich? No kidding. Also, I don't get your paragraph about his appeal. I always thought that he could fit in with any group and I never thought he was above begging for money. Look how much he raised for his campaign. The fact of the matter is he is the best and the biggest fundraiser. In addition, I see his schedule everyday and it makes the rest of us look lazy. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+8
IN RESPONSE:
shrinkess
Oct 28, 09 10:48 PM CDT
Yes. At least he isn't spending time on a ranch somewhere.
Vote up! Vote down!
+2
proud_prude
Oct 27, 09 12:17 PM CDT
It was Lady Lewinsky who ruined Bill Clinton-- and the vast right-wing conspiracy. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+1
IN RESPONSE:
citygirl
Oct 27, 09 1:18 PM CDT
Nope, it was his definition of sex.
Vote up! Vote down!
+3
IN RESPONSE:
MrsK
Oct 27, 09 3:48 PM CDT
It was Clinton's libido that ruined him. Not unlike John Edwards.
Vote up! Vote down!
0
IN RESPONSE:
rajanKazhmin
Oct 27, 09 6:34 PM CDT
I don't care how many BJs Clinton or B-Rock get. Why do people care about that stuff? They all get their D's wet on a regular basis. Deal.
Vote up! Vote down!
0
IN RESPONSE:
kokuaguy
Oct 27, 09 8:03 PM CDT
Actually, citygirl is correct, MrsK. It was their relationships with a cruel mistress sometimes known as Lady Veritas that did the two good ole boys in. And speaking of libidos, does it get you aroused when folks around here put their thumbs in a southerly direction after reading 99% of your pearls before swine? And how do you feel about the pet name, MrsKKK? Does it make you all warm inside when your friends here use it on you? I thought so. ; ^)
Vote up! Vote down!
+2
dax
Oct 27, 09 12:39 PM CDT
No really, Mr. Wolff, tell us what you really think about President Obama. Don't hold back. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+3
polstroad
Oct 27, 09 4:33 PM CDT
Fundraising, wofman, goes with the job. You know it. Stop being an asshole. Obama does not spend 3 weeks out of evry four on vacation. Did you raise money for this site? What does that make you? Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
Reader83540559
Oct 27, 09 7:03 PM CDT
Vast right wing conspiracy huh? You are sure that's what did Bill in huh? Gotta run out and see if I can't get one of them. Bull Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
atonausar
Oct 28, 09 10:06 AM CDT
This article was truly nauseating. When your host serves you horse shit on a paper plate at the dinner party, the message is clear. Fuck around and you could quickly become irrelevant. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
IN RESPONSE:
MichaelWolff
Oct 28, 09 10:59 AM CDT
Don't understand.
Vote up! Vote down!
+1
Cash
Oct 28, 09 10:19 AM CDT
Wolff's got a point. Obama took all that gay money and what's he done since 1/20 but implement the gay agenda. Which is why gays are so happy with everything Obama's accomplished for them. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
IN RESPONSE:
fancygapva
Oct 31, 09 6:35 PM CDT
Where have YOU been? Gays don't generally feel that Obama has done much for them and most I know aren't that happy with him.
Vote up! Vote down!
0
stever
Oct 28, 09 11:31 AM CDT
The WSJ piece is devastating and your response to it is measured, wise and disturbing. I applaud your courage especially given the inevitably hysterical responses of the more fanatical newser readers who apparently believe that no criticism of the administration is legitimate. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+1
percolator
Oct 28, 09 12:29 PM CDT
The vast majority of BOTH Democrat and Republican supporters are stupid. The Dems hated Bush and the Reps hate Obama, yet both party supporters fail to understand that BOTH Bush and Obama are Fascists trashing the Constitution and rewarding the financial oligarchs of Wall St. The elected Dems & Reps are ALL corrupt! Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
-2
IN RESPONSE:
MichaelWolff
Oct 31, 09 2:39 PM CDT
I see.
Vote up! Vote down!
0
IN RESPONSE:
citygirl
Nov 2, 09 1:26 PM CST
Yep!
Vote up! Vote down!
0
Jassy
Oct 29, 09 6:03 AM CDT
Obama is a politician. This is what they do. The problem is that people think because Obama looks different he is different. Grow up America. If it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck............. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+1
fancygapva
Oct 31, 09 6:32 PM CDT
I doubt that the groveling that Mr. Wolff depicts is on any calendar under the title fundraiser., A fundraiser generally consists of an expensive, usually BAD meal and a speech. Maybe cocktails before, possibly Q&A afterward. Sometimes a VERY expensive small dinner, maybe that's Michael's "groveling" scene. but they are usually listed as $25,000 a plate fundraisers and still don't include groveling, just dinner conversation and a speech. All public. Every politician raises money. If Bush didn't have scheduled fundraisers maybe he groveled in small groups out cutting brush or playing golf. The golf games I've heard about Obama playing are with his staff. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
vnbrtzl
Nov 1, 09 4:33 AM CST
I have come for my Sunday morning comics. " The Far Left Side " Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+2
Silverbow7
Nov 1, 09 4:32 PM CST
You think Bush did so well on donations because he was better at it? Look what he was selling. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
RLC
Nov 2, 09 3:50 PM CST
Wolf is a clown. Who knows better about sucking up that this closet case? Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
IN RESPONSE:
citygirl
Nov 2, 09 5:00 PM CST
Which closet Michael is in, would you elaborate please?
Vote up! Vote down!
0
LEAVE A
COMMENT
Comment Policy
Facebook ConnectPost this comment to Facebook?

After connecting you will have the option to post your comment on your Facebook profile.

 
RECENT POSTS
Nov 20, 09 | 8:32 AM

The Health-Care Wars Have Just Begun

Nov 19, 09 | 10:14 AM

Sarah Palin Deserves Some More Attention

Nov 18, 09 | 2:40 PM

And We Thought We Hated Mammograms

Nov 18, 09 | 8:43 AM

China and the Obese: The President Meets His Greatest Problems

Nov 17, 09 | 6:50 AM

Rupert Murdoch’s Guy Gets It

Nov 16, 09 | 12:30 PM

Obama's Secret Weapon: The Hug

Nov 16, 09 | 8:01 AM

The President Wants You to Know He’s Too Dopey to Use Twitter

Nov 13, 09 | 6:55 AM

Does Warren Buffett Know What He’s Talking About?

Nov 12, 09 | 7:02 AM

Is Lou Dobbs the Last Conservative Pundit?

Nov 11, 09 | 9:07 AM

Who Was the Fort Hood Shooter?

ABOUT

OFF THE GRID is about why the news is the news. Here are the real motivations of both media and newsmakers. Here's the backstory. This is a look at the inner workings of desperate media, the inner life of the publicity crazed, and the true meaning of the news of the day.

FeedRSS