President Obama’s latest campaign e-mail may not be his most effective, but it’s certainly his most ironic. In it, he essentially admits that while nobody will support him thanks to his accomplishments, they should do so because he stands for democracy and against “massive spending”; he also says, in hilarious fashion, “This isn’t about me.” Seriously. Here’s the text:
We’re getting outraised — a first for a sitting president, if this continues. Not just by the super PACs and outside groups that are pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into misleading ads, but by our opponent and the Republican Party, which just outraised us for the second month in a row.
We can win a race in which the other side spends more than we do. But not this much more.
So I need your help. If you believe that regular people should decide elections, then please chip in $3 or more today.
This isn’t about me or the outcome of one election.
This election will be a test of the model that got us here. We’ll learn whether it’s still true that a grassroots campaign can elect a president — whether ordinary Americans are in control of our democracy in the face of massive spending.
I believe we can do this. When all of us chip in what we can, when we can, we are the most powerful force in politics.
But today is the day to prove it. Donate now:
Thank you — for everything you’ve done before and everything you’re doing now. It matters.
Let’s analyze. First, Obama’s claim that “This isn’t about me or the outcome of one election. This election will be a test of the model that got us here.” Obviously, this is a lie. If we were a test of the Obama model, there are plenty of other places folks could give their money. Obama knows this election is about him. And that’s precisely what he’s running from. He knows that if this election and his support level are based on his record, his goose is cooked. So the election has to be about more than him.
So, what’s this election actually about? Says Obama, “We’ll learn whether it’s still true that a grassroots campaign can elect a president — whether ordinary Americans are in control of our democracy in the face of massive spending.”
The irony here is astonishing. Obama’s campaign support is hardly grassroots – it’s union-organized and Hollywood supported. And his opposition isn’t astroturfed – they’re the same grassroots that showed up to support Gov. Scott Walker in Wisconsin.
More than that, it’s almost unbelievable that Obama would miss the irony of stating that this election is about “whether ordinary Americans are in control of our democracy in the face of massive spending.” That’s the case, in a nutshell, for Mitt Romney – Obama’s massive spending has removed ordinary Americans from the chain of democratic accountability.
So now Obama is reduced to begging for Americans to ignore him and focus on the battle against the Richy Riches supposedly buying this election (but not Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, or George Soros). And we’re supposed to believe that Obama stands for democracy, not “massive spending.” Right.