Archive for the ‘hillary’ Category

This super-delegate calculator makes it plain why Hillary cannot win.  Essentially, she would need two thirds of the unpledged superdelegates and double digit wins for the remainder of the primaries to pull it off.  I don’t think she’ll quit, though, perhaps through some small hope that a Sirhan Sirhan figure will perepetrate a deus ex machina and sort out this Obama impediment once and for all.

Read Full Post »

Liberalism is a very damaging philosophy. It denies the reality of groups. It requires willful ignorance of reality. It demands equality even where inequality is the natural result of free choice. That said, the old liberalism of FDR and MLK was far less damaging than the radical, anti-American leftism of someone like Noam Chomsky or Jeremiah Wright. The former was often a misguided result of a laudable concern for the poor and the incompetent.

Juan Williams, to his credit, calls out Obama for his bad judgment and bad values in standing by someone like Rev. God Damn America for so long. He notes that Obama has failed an important test of leadership by excusing the counterproductive paranoia of many black Americans. He writes:

Last March in Selma, Ala., Mr. Obama appeared on the verge of breaking away from the merchants of black grievance and victimization. At a commemoration of the 1965 Selma-to-Montgomery march for voting rights, he spoke in a King-like voice. He focused on traditions of black sacrifice, idealism and the need for taking personal responsibility for building strong black families and communities. He said black people should never “deny that its gotten better,” even as the movement goes on to improve schools and provide good health care for all Americans. He then challenged black America, by saying that “government alone can’t solve all those problems . . . it is not enough just to ask what the government can do for us — it’s important for us to ask what we can do for ourselves.”

Mr. Obama added that better education for black students begins with black parents visiting their children’s teachers, as well as turning off the television so children can focus on homework. He expressed alarm over the lack of appreciation for education in the black community: “I don’t know who taught them that reading and writing and conjugating your verbs were something white. We’ve got to get over that mentality.” King, he added later, believed that black America has to first “transform ourselves in order to transform the world.”

But as his campaign made headway with black voters, Mr. Obama no longer spoke about the responsibility and the power of black America to appeal to the conscience and highest ideals of the nation. He no longer asks black people to let go of the grievance culture to transcend racial arguments and transform the world.

He has stopped all mention of government’s inability to create strong black families, while the black community accepts a 70% out-of-wedlock birth rate. Half of black and Hispanic children drop out of high school, but he no longer touches on the need for parents to convey a love of learning to their children. There is no mention in his speeches of the history of expensive but ineffective government programs that encourage dependency. He fails to point out the failures of too many poverty programs, given the 25% poverty rate in black America.

And he chooses not to confront the poisonous “thug life” culture in rap music that glorifies drug use and crime.

Instead the senator, in a full political pander, is busy excusing Rev. Wright’s racial attacks as the right of the Rev.-Wright generation of black Americans to define the nation’s future by their past. He stretches compassion to the breaking point by equating his white grandmother’s private concerns about black men on the street with Rev. Wright’s public stirring of racial division.

Obama is insecure about his identity. Only someone who is 100% black, has been around black people his whole life, and has personal knowledge of the best of black American life–someone like Williams, Bill Cosby, or MLK–finds it natural to criticize his fellow blacks. Such a man can weather the inevitable charges of “airing dirty laundry” or “selling out.” Obama, by contrast, always feels he might not be black enough. And, for him, the black world is authentic and blameless in a way that the white America of his mom and grandparents is not. It should be obvious why we wouldn’t someone like this, someone undergoing a perpetual and adolescent crisis of identity well into adulthood, in any position of power.

I suggested many moons ago that Americans are not so much prejudiced against blacks as they are prejudiced against the last two generations of black leaders, symbolized by agitators like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and by sure failures of leadership as David Dinkins and Ray Nagin.  Obama’s obeissance to these kind of fools shows that while he may be a “race man,” he is not his own man.

Williams points out that as Barack has gained support among blacks, he has abandoned the rhetoric of unity and moderation that he championed earlier in his run, the kind of talk that appeal to NPR listeners and other latte liberals. It was questionable if such a candidate could ever ultimately appeal to the blue collar whites that are swing voters in a national election. But an overt, if dissembling, black power candidate never had a chance. It will be hard for Obama to put that genie back in the bottle.  (Of course, it is remarkable that the Clinton machine, for all of its vaunted “hard ball” tactics, never sent an operative to buy thse videos or look them up on You Tube and get the word out before it was too late.)

As a consequence of this late disclosure of Obama’s knee deep commitment to black nationalism, an angry bully, who has alienated most of the conservatives in his own base, may be propelled to the Presidency. Mccain will win in spite of his unpopular views on Iraq simply because of the Democratic Party’s continued embrace of unpatriotic, divisive figures beholden to minority interests and anti-Americanism of one kind or another. It’s like a combination of Dukakis (unpatriotic), Jesse Jackson (hateful and racist), and John Kerry (academic and pacifistic) finds itself in Obama, whose only saving grace is his rhetorical prowess. Republicans and 527s won’t pull punches the way Democratic primary candidates have thus far. The Democrats’ selection process seems perennially unable to put forward a winning candidate, even during a time of economic insecurity and an ongoing and unpopular war.  Obama, while apparently a winner, was only held together until now by a thin tissue of media incompetence and mistaken impressions.  While much can happen between now and November, I believe he will lose.

Read Full Post »

Obama, though he portrays himself as a post-racial healer, is willing to play the race card to win this election.  He’s just thrown Democratic party elder statesman, Geraldine Ferraro, under the bus for pointing out the obvious:  if Obama were a white man or a white woman, he wouldn’t be so close to winning the nomination. 

Andrew Sullivan calls the Clinton’s despicable for their “hard ball” tactics, but, what game did he think everyone was playing?  This is politics.  Obama’s intimations about post-racial healing and connectedness are just as focus-grouped and artificial as every word out of Hillary’s mouth.  He’s just smoother in the delivery.  Plus, all of her attacks are moderate and reasonable considering what the Clintons are capable of and amount to the following:  he’s inexperienced, he’s got skeletons, he’s got some bad associates, and the media’s given him a pass. 

But it is an abnormal and fairly recent development that racism charges can simultaneously be perceived as the greatest social evil and also be the most common charge advanced by blacks seeking an advantage against whites. 

The anti-racism of today is not rooted in justice.  There is almost no racism in America today, and, even to the extent it exists, it does not explain persistent and growing black failure.  Instead, the anti-racism of today is an ideology of power designed to identify, denounce, and avenge the imaginary white sources of black failure.  Because this campaign is rooted not in justice but in furtherance of the Marxist goal of rearranging society by subordinating whites to minorities and newcomers, it knows no limits. 

It would be nice to think Obama could assuage these disaffected groups, recreate conditions of a common national identity, and promote race relations based on mutual understanding and justice.  His flowerly campaign rhetoric, however, does not match his gritty and dishonorable campaign tactics. 

As I’ve said before, Obama will be a tragic figure if elected, because modern day leftism, as espoused in the Democratic Party, does not permit a vocabulary with which to provide limits to the dominant anti-white, anti-rich, anti-male, anti-Christian, anti-establishment, and anti-American agenda.

Read Full Post »

Dmity Medvedev deserves a chance to rule.  He’s been frequently lambasted as Putin’s “puppet” by know-it-all westerners. But how much worse, how much of a puppet, would Hillary Clinton be?  Isn’t this the high water mark of hypocricy, particularly when this charge is uttered by Hillary herself?

Before his election, Medvedev was a successful lawyer, a law professor, and a participant in the liberal, reformist regime in St. Petersburg during the 1990s.  He ran the huge conglomerate Gazprom.  Then he served as Vladimir Putin’s deputy. Now they will share power differently, with Putin as prime minister. This is unique, but movement in and out of power is not necessarily the end of democracy (ask President and Supreme Court Justice Taft), and it surely is less of a threat than the hereditary duopoly of two mediocre and power-hungry families, as we have at home of late.

Hillary, by contrast, was a reasonably successful commercial lawyer, but in a po-dunk state; she managed to find herself in two major financial scandals (Whitewater and Cattle Futures); there is no doubt she was only elected in NY because of her name recognition and her husband’s fundraising ability.  She failed miserably in her managerial role trying to promote healthcare, and so far has shown little managerial competence in running her presidential campaign.  She has a very thin resume when it comes to executive functions, unlike Putin’s deputy. She has been a competent Senator, but the skills learned there do not translate very well into being President, which is probably why the last six Presidents came from a gubernatorial or VP background.

Hillary’s qualifications are dubious, but all too common in the age of democratic decadence; her First Lady status is something she shares in common with other lackluster, quasi-monarchical “presidents” such as Indira Gandhi (India), Corozon Aquino (Philippines), and Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner (Argentina).   None of these leaders was known for much more than nepotism and corruption.

Russia is not perfect . . . if the standard of perfection is democratic liberalism.  But neither then is China, South Africa, or Albania.  Yet they all get a pass. Russia is certainly in pretty good shape by any world historical standard.  It is much more liberal than it was during the dark days of Soviet Communism, when American intellectuals were talking about convergence and unilateral disarmament and “economic democracy.”  Finally, Russia would be a natural partner in the war against Radical Islam, if only American leaders and journalists would stop going out of our way to insult its leaders. 

American critics insult Russia, even as these same public intellectuals make apologies for useless thugs like Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Amadinedjead, not to mention Castro.  Why? Pas d’ennemi a gauche!  Putin is perceived by elites in both parties as a “man of the right,” and thus none of his expressions of national pride and authority go uncriticized. 

He is a de Gaulle figure in his country’s history, restoring pride through competent leadership that is consciously mindful of the value of patriotic symbols.  His restoration of the role of the Orthodox Church in particular grates against liberals and atheist comopolitans.  But it is high time that America behaved, if not justly and fairly, at least sensibly towards Russia.  Mere self interest should correct our path and remind us that the only thing we’ve gotten from this campaign of defamation is highly priced oil and a Russia increasingly unified, once more, against American “imperialists.” 

Conservatives in particular should not fall into an outdated Russophobia, because, for us, any nation expressing its particular identity with pride and confidence is a natural friend, a friend against common enemies:  the leveling forces of globalism, unrestrained materialism, radical Islam, and nation-destroying mass immigration by Third Worlders.

Read Full Post »

Hillary Clinton’s campaign is in disarray, and she is about to lose for one reason:  the product.  She’s unpopular, crude, uninteresting, fake, and awkward.  No technical campaigning skills by her handlers and managers can change that.  Jonathan Chait breaks it down:

Republicans have long had a kind of black-magic fear of the Clintons’ political potency. From the right’s perspective, Bill Clinton won the presidency at a time when the GOP thought it had an electoral college lock. Then he beat back the Republican revolution and the party’s efforts to defeat him.

The reality is less dramatic. Bill Clinton defeated a recession-weakened president with some help from a third-party spoiler, stopped the GOP from cutting highly popular social programs, won reelection during an economic boom and rallied his own party to thwart a wildly partisan impeachment crusade. None of these triumphs required unusual political skill.

Hillary Clinton has tried to piggyback on her husband’s ferocious reputation, boasting that she “beat the Republican attack machine.” Of course, if anybody beat the Republican attack machine, it was Bill. Hillary Clinton wasn’t on any ballot in the 1990s. True, her reputation was at stake, but that’s a fight she lost: She ended that decade a highly unpopular figure. She remains one today, with about half of the public persistently telling pollsters they have an unfavorable view of her.

Obama also is something new, or, rather, something forgotten:  a capable politician with good political skills.  We’re so used to boring, wonky, and dry politicians that are bad speakers and also socially awkward that we have forgotten his style was once ubiquitous.  No one 50 or 100 years ago would have mistaken his political and social skills, devoid of any serious policy content, as something to get too excited over.   But ours is a very decadent age!

Read Full Post »

Obama talks a big game. We need courage.  We need hope.  Everything is going to be better.  But his policies are ordinary, and his entire life has been careful and cowardly. 

Respected economist Robert Samuelson calls him on it:

Repudiating racism is not a magic cure-all for the nation’s ills. It requires independent ideas, and Obama has few. If you examine his agenda, it is completely ordinary, highly partisan, not candid and mostly unresponsive to many pressing national problems. . . . .

American people not just what they want to hear, but what we need to know.” Well, he hasn’t so far.

Consider the retiring baby boomers. A truth-telling Obama might say: “Spending for retirees — mainly Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid — is already nearly half the federal budget. Unless we curb these rising costs, we will crush our children with higher taxes. Reflecting longer life expectancies, we should gradually raise the eligibility ages for these programs and trim benefits for wealthier retirees. Both Democrats and Republicans are to blame for inaction. Waiting longer will only worsen the problem.”

Instead, Obama pledges not to raise the retirement age and to “protect Social Security benefits for current and future beneficiaries.” This isn’t “change”; it’s sanctification of the status quo. He would also exempt all retirees making less than $50,000 annually from income tax. By his math, that would provide average tax relief of $1,400 to 7 million retirees — shifting more of the tax burden onto younger workers. Obama’s main proposal for Social Security is to raise the payroll tax beyond the present $102,000 ceiling. . . .

The contrast between his broad rhetoric and his narrow agenda is stark, and yet the press corps — preoccupied with the political “horse race” — has treated his invocation of “change” as a serious idea rather than a shallow campaign slogan. He seems to have hypnotized much of the media and the public with his eloquence and the symbolism of his life story. The result is a mass delusion that Obama is forthrightly engaging the nation’s major problems when, so far, he isn’t.

I still kinda hope Obama wins, not because he’ll be good–I think he’ll be a typical liberal disaster and a bad leader in a crisis–but I want him to win over Hillary because it will be good to see the Clintons lose.  I also think a President Obama would be bearable, because he won’t be able to get his dumbest policies passed. 

By contrast, McCain would possibly be able to get his country-destroying amnesty through Congress with the help of Democrats and moderate Republicans.  There would be no real hope for national renewal after amnesty, but America can weather, and even bounce back stronger and wisened, from an ineffective liberal president. I also think a President McCain’s sins of commission in foreign policy–possibly leading to an intervention in Sudan and a war with Russia over Kosovo–would be far worse than Obama’s kumbaya, diplomatic initiatives.

Read Full Post »

America is becoming a land where ethnic spoils are openly sought by different minority groups.  I wrote less than one month ago :  Non-white races and victim groups are considered real, vital, and worthy of self-identification.  Tribal loyalties among these groups are perfectly permissible, as are bids for group power and group rights. This is a natural instinct and not unjust per se.  White men, however, must continue to abide by the older American ideal of individualism and individual judgment about the merit of others, whether in voting, on the job, or otherwise.  To ask the formerly disenfranchised groups to abide by this same standard of justice is simply too much to ask.  It’s “their turn.” As a consequence, we have an approach to inherited identity that amounts to unilateral disarmament by the majority.  Everyone can think tribally and seek out group interests except for the historical majority and its elites.

So consider the response of Hispanic leaders to Hillary’s firing of her lovely, though ineffective, campaign manager, Solis Doyle: 

“Apparently, loyalty is not a two-way street,” [Steven Ybarra] wrote. “Latino superdelegates like myself . . . will have cause to pause.”

Ybarra told The Post yesterday that the loss of Solis Doyle, a child of Mexican immigrants, just weeks before the Texas primary, where 36 percent of the population is Hispanic, was “dumb as a stump.” 

New York Assemblyman Ruben Diaz writes:

It is hard to understand how the Hispanic community that has been there to keep your campaign alive could remain in your corner when the first Hispanic woman to serve as your presidential campaign manager has resigned from her post.

Ace serves up all the goodies in his post on the subject. 

It should be obvious that for Hispanics, as with most constituents of the Democratic Party, politics and life are chiefly about the good of the tribe, the respect due to the tribe, and, broadly speaking “pay back.”  From these quotes, it is clear that there is essentially no sense of a standard outside of tribal spoils with which to these people judge hiring, firing, and other decisions of consequence.

Whether it’s the percentage of people in jail, how many immigrants are let into the country, or whom to vote for, the issue is not decided by individuals weighing the pros and cons based on familial and personal interests, but rather these decisions are made en masse based on the impact and symbolism of these decisions on the tribe as a whole.  While tribalism is somewhat primitive, contrary to the values of global capitalism, and contrary to the individualist ideals of America’s past, it is fast becoming time that whites, including elite whites, must identify tribally out of sheer necessity. We’ve let tribal peoples into this country in massive numbers, now, instead of playing the magnaminous hosts welcoming our guests, we’re being reduced to the degraded condition of one more tribe that must look out for “number one.”  This is far from ideal, but living in a fantasyland where we can avoid tribal thinking is a sure recipe for being oppressed by groups more organized and self-confident, in addition to being increasingly more numerous.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »