1. We are about to see a deluge of superdelegates for Obama. If Hillary does not withdraw soon, her decision will be academic. She must retreat gracefully of her own volition right now in order to avoid total defeat. That is, to make any political hay out of this ugly thrashing she must do the honorable thing while she can still claim with some plausibility that her exit is her idea.
My guess is that party stalwarts are making this argument to her right now. Give her a few days to let it sink in.
2. The worse this gets (superdelegates and graybeards and all that), the humiliation factor will rise exponentially. The Clintons will become the butt of every late-night political joke. Hillary has endured a lot of mortification in her public and private life. We know she can absorb copious amounts of debasement at the hands of the mainstream media and her political opponents, but can Bill and Hill face the derision that will accompany a decision to continue at all costs?
At this point in their lives (in his life especially), will they allow themselves to become public laughingstocks? Probably not.
I give them seventy-two hours (one week at the most).
My guess is that party stalwarts are making this argument to her right now. Give her a few days to let it sink in.
2. The worse this gets (superdelegates and graybeards and all that), the humiliation factor will rise exponentially. The Clintons will become the butt of every late-night political joke. Hillary has endured a lot of mortification in her public and private life. We know she can absorb copious amounts of debasement at the hands of the mainstream media and her political opponents, but can Bill and Hill face the derision that will accompany a decision to continue at all costs?
At this point in their lives (in his life especially), will they allow themselves to become public laughingstocks? Probably not.
I give them seventy-two hours (one week at the most).
In part one I offered the psychology and the emotional explanation of "why it's finally over."
In a nutshell, Hillary had one last "moment" of opportunity to "change the game," and she did not. Barack beat her fair and square in a big show down state, North Carolina (tenth most-populous in the Union). Democrats in North Carolina were attentive and cognizant of the stakes, and they chose him over her. Done deal.
Why she will actually quit:
The Practical Reasons.
1. She is a practical politician. Lyndon Johnson purportedly said, "if you can't walk into a room and know who is for you and who is against you, you shouldn't be in politics." Hill and Bill understand who is for them and who is against them and time has run out to change that complex but clearly unfavorable calculus. They wake up this morning to the inescapable conclusion that this thing is all over.
For the record: it was not over until last night, which is why they stayed in when so many people told them to quit. But it is over this morning.
2. Fighting on once you have lost is poor form and bad politics. Once Lee was cut-off from joining Johnston in April of 1865, he faced a monumental decision. Did he "go see General Grant" or take his fight into the hills and stage a guerrilla war? Hill and Bill will follow Lee's gentlemanly example and choose not to "devastate the countryside any further."
She will shut down her campaign and begin to do things to help her party and the man who defeated her. Anything short of that will garner nothing but ill will from too many Democrats. Will there be hard feelings? Yes. Will she need to grit her teeth and smile as she forces herself to tell huge crowds that Barack Obama is the most qualified man to be president of the United States in 2008? Yes. But she will be a trooper.
What does she have to gain by being a team player?
She is relatively young at 60. And life takes funny turns. She had to play this like it was her one and only chance--but, in truth, it may not be. Who knows? But what she does between now and November will determine her political viability over the course of the next ten years. Moreover, being president is not the only mode of serving your country with honor and distinction.
She must be a good soldier. She must show grace in defeat.
3. Money (the most compelling of all the practical reasons). At this point, who would invest in this sinking ship?
Next Question: Is she VP material?
No. There is no place for her on this ticket. If elected, she and Bill would overshadow the young president during the early stages of even the most successful of Obama administrations. Moreover, although I continue to believe that she could have beaten McCain in the General Election, why place a national politician with such high negatives in the second chair? How would that help?
Is there a need for unity? Not really. The Hillary supporters are going to be frustrated and a bit bitter for a time, but all that will wear off between now and Labor Day. Hardcore Hillary-ites are going to support Obama all the way in the fall. An Obama loss would have created a crisis (with "millennials" and African Americans), which could have only been alleviated by an Obama conversion. Not so with a Hillary defeat.
Speculation in re VP: I look for Obama to pick a less-famous white woman (from the Midwest maybe).
Anyhow, the party is finally over. The Clintons had ample opportunity to take their case to the people--and the people have spoken. All that is left now is deciding on the protocol for a graceful exit.
In a nutshell, Hillary had one last "moment" of opportunity to "change the game," and she did not. Barack beat her fair and square in a big show down state, North Carolina (tenth most-populous in the Union). Democrats in North Carolina were attentive and cognizant of the stakes, and they chose him over her. Done deal.
Why she will actually quit:
The Practical Reasons.
1. She is a practical politician. Lyndon Johnson purportedly said, "if you can't walk into a room and know who is for you and who is against you, you shouldn't be in politics." Hill and Bill understand who is for them and who is against them and time has run out to change that complex but clearly unfavorable calculus. They wake up this morning to the inescapable conclusion that this thing is all over.
For the record: it was not over until last night, which is why they stayed in when so many people told them to quit. But it is over this morning.
2. Fighting on once you have lost is poor form and bad politics. Once Lee was cut-off from joining Johnston in April of 1865, he faced a monumental decision. Did he "go see General Grant" or take his fight into the hills and stage a guerrilla war? Hill and Bill will follow Lee's gentlemanly example and choose not to "devastate the countryside any further."
She will shut down her campaign and begin to do things to help her party and the man who defeated her. Anything short of that will garner nothing but ill will from too many Democrats. Will there be hard feelings? Yes. Will she need to grit her teeth and smile as she forces herself to tell huge crowds that Barack Obama is the most qualified man to be president of the United States in 2008? Yes. But she will be a trooper.
What does she have to gain by being a team player?
She is relatively young at 60. And life takes funny turns. She had to play this like it was her one and only chance--but, in truth, it may not be. Who knows? But what she does between now and November will determine her political viability over the course of the next ten years. Moreover, being president is not the only mode of serving your country with honor and distinction.
She must be a good soldier. She must show grace in defeat.
3. Money (the most compelling of all the practical reasons). At this point, who would invest in this sinking ship?
Next Question: Is she VP material?
No. There is no place for her on this ticket. If elected, she and Bill would overshadow the young president during the early stages of even the most successful of Obama administrations. Moreover, although I continue to believe that she could have beaten McCain in the General Election, why place a national politician with such high negatives in the second chair? How would that help?
Is there a need for unity? Not really. The Hillary supporters are going to be frustrated and a bit bitter for a time, but all that will wear off between now and Labor Day. Hardcore Hillary-ites are going to support Obama all the way in the fall. An Obama loss would have created a crisis (with "millennials" and African Americans), which could have only been alleviated by an Obama conversion. Not so with a Hillary defeat.
Speculation in re VP: I look for Obama to pick a less-famous white woman (from the Midwest maybe).
Anyhow, the party is finally over. The Clintons had ample opportunity to take their case to the people--and the people have spoken. All that is left now is deciding on the protocol for a graceful exit.
06/05: Why It's Finally Over
If, indeed, these exit numbers from North Carolina are indicative of the final official tally, the Hillary campaign is essentially finished.
Why?
There is a tide in the affairs of men.
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.
In terms less grand, life is made up of moments.
Tonight was Hillary's last great moment of opportunity. She was on a roll, still gaining altitude after notching an exultant ten-point victory in Pennsylvania. Even more encouraging, the data underneath the Pennsylvania numbers illustrated deep trouble for the wunderkind from the Land of Lincoln. Add the second wave of the Reverend Wright fiasco to the fire, and Obama was not just in a slump, he was gasping for air and desperately in need of a high note.
For the first time in a long time, there was the a sense of possibility floating around Camp Clinton.
UPDATE: with 29 percent reporting in NC, Obama leads Clinton 59 to 39. Rout.
Oddly enough, the raised expectations concerning North Carolina makes this defeat ultimately more crushing. It was suddenly and unexpectedly the moment to "change the game," as Mrs. Clinton sensed earlier in the week.
The game changed tonight--but not in the way she had hoped. Is there anywhere to go from here?
Can anyone really get excited about the 28 delegates available in West Virginia next week?
I don't expect her to withdraw within the next twenty-four hours (but I would not be completely surprised if it happened much sooner than we might have dreamed earlier in the day). However, this loss cuts deep, and I expect the life to gradually fade from the Clinton campaign before our eyes over the course of the next seven days. This thing looks over to me.
Expect my final salute to the gutsy and surprisingly sympathetic Mrs. Clinton in the days to come.
Why?
There is a tide in the affairs of men.
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.
In terms less grand, life is made up of moments.
Tonight was Hillary's last great moment of opportunity. She was on a roll, still gaining altitude after notching an exultant ten-point victory in Pennsylvania. Even more encouraging, the data underneath the Pennsylvania numbers illustrated deep trouble for the wunderkind from the Land of Lincoln. Add the second wave of the Reverend Wright fiasco to the fire, and Obama was not just in a slump, he was gasping for air and desperately in need of a high note.
For the first time in a long time, there was the a sense of possibility floating around Camp Clinton.
UPDATE: with 29 percent reporting in NC, Obama leads Clinton 59 to 39. Rout.
Oddly enough, the raised expectations concerning North Carolina makes this defeat ultimately more crushing. It was suddenly and unexpectedly the moment to "change the game," as Mrs. Clinton sensed earlier in the week.
The game changed tonight--but not in the way she had hoped. Is there anywhere to go from here?
Can anyone really get excited about the 28 delegates available in West Virginia next week?
I don't expect her to withdraw within the next twenty-four hours (but I would not be completely surprised if it happened much sooner than we might have dreamed earlier in the day). However, this loss cuts deep, and I expect the life to gradually fade from the Clinton campaign before our eyes over the course of the next seven days. This thing looks over to me.
Expect my final salute to the gutsy and surprisingly sympathetic Mrs. Clinton in the days to come.
Category: Religion & Public Policy
Posted by: an okie gardener
I have written often concerning Religion and Public Policy. At greatest length in a series here: Part One, Part Two, Part Three, Part Four
If the topic of Religion and Public Policy, or, how Religion can operate in the American political process, interests you, then I recommend this article from the most recent Princeton Seminary Bulletin by John R. Bowlin, the Professor of Reformed Theology and Public Life at the Seminary.
His most provocative thesis is this: our nation has had, and will have again a religious establishment. Following Thomas Aquinas, he asserts that human beings naturally link politics and religion into a self-supporting whole--religion supports the order of rule and vice versa whithin a public piety. Our nation, historically, has had unofficial religious establishment(s). Our last one was the Cold War linkage of mainline Protestantism with true Americanism that came apart in the late 20th century. We now are in what he regards as a temporary period between religious establishments. The question: what will the next religious establishment be? He doubts it will be some variety of Christianity.
For myself, some claim that our current multiculturalism/ religious&moral relativism supported with postmodernist philosophy and expressed in an ironic ethos is itself a religious establishment. One certainly can define "religion" broadly enough to encompass this milieu. But it would not surprise me to see a more explicitly religious establishment arise. And it would not surprise me if it were post-Christian.
If the topic of Religion and Public Policy, or, how Religion can operate in the American political process, interests you, then I recommend this article from the most recent Princeton Seminary Bulletin by John R. Bowlin, the Professor of Reformed Theology and Public Life at the Seminary.
His most provocative thesis is this: our nation has had, and will have again a religious establishment. Following Thomas Aquinas, he asserts that human beings naturally link politics and religion into a self-supporting whole--religion supports the order of rule and vice versa whithin a public piety. Our nation, historically, has had unofficial religious establishment(s). Our last one was the Cold War linkage of mainline Protestantism with true Americanism that came apart in the late 20th century. We now are in what he regards as a temporary period between religious establishments. The question: what will the next religious establishment be? He doubts it will be some variety of Christianity.
For myself, some claim that our current multiculturalism/ religious&moral relativism supported with postmodernist philosophy and expressed in an ironic ethos is itself a religious establishment. One certainly can define "religion" broadly enough to encompass this milieu. But it would not surprise me to see a more explicitly religious establishment arise. And it would not surprise me if it were post-Christian.
This article from the Washington Post offers a sobering, even frightening, look at the future of Japan.
An excerpt:
The proportion of children in the population fell to an all-time low of 13.5 percent. That number has been falling for 34 straight years and is the lowest among 31 major countries, according to the report. In the United States, children account for about 20 percent of the population.
Japan also has a surfeit of the elderly. About 22 percent of the population is 65 or older, the highest proportion in the world. And that number is on the rise. By 2020, the elderly will outnumber children by nearly 3 to 1, the government report predicted. By 2040, they will outnumber them by nearly 4 to 1.
The economic and social consequences of these trends are difficult to overstate.
In the U.S. we have seen an overall decline in the birthrate for decades. Why? Many causes, but let me raise a few possibilities and questions.
When the social ideal for both sexes is a successful career, then couples will choose to have fewer children.
When the economic ideal for couples is a house their grandparents would have regarded as a mansion, plus travel and at least two nice cars, then couples will choose to have fewer children.
When the societal ideal for old age is a carefree extended vacation requiring invested money, then couples will choose to have fewer children.
When self-satisfaction and personal leisure are high priorities, then couples will choose to have fewer children.
When stable family life until death seems an impossible ideal, then couples will choose to have fewer children.
When the social ideal of the child-centered household means that children are terribly expensive, then couples will choose to have fewer children.
I do think that it is a responsible decision to choose to have a limited number of children for the sake of the environment (we seem to have obeyed one of God's commands, to fill the earth), but I suspect we have fewer children for lots of not-so-good reasons.
An excerpt:
The proportion of children in the population fell to an all-time low of 13.5 percent. That number has been falling for 34 straight years and is the lowest among 31 major countries, according to the report. In the United States, children account for about 20 percent of the population.
Japan also has a surfeit of the elderly. About 22 percent of the population is 65 or older, the highest proportion in the world. And that number is on the rise. By 2020, the elderly will outnumber children by nearly 3 to 1, the government report predicted. By 2040, they will outnumber them by nearly 4 to 1.
The economic and social consequences of these trends are difficult to overstate.
In the U.S. we have seen an overall decline in the birthrate for decades. Why? Many causes, but let me raise a few possibilities and questions.
When the social ideal for both sexes is a successful career, then couples will choose to have fewer children.
When the economic ideal for couples is a house their grandparents would have regarded as a mansion, plus travel and at least two nice cars, then couples will choose to have fewer children.
When the societal ideal for old age is a carefree extended vacation requiring invested money, then couples will choose to have fewer children.
When self-satisfaction and personal leisure are high priorities, then couples will choose to have fewer children.
When stable family life until death seems an impossible ideal, then couples will choose to have fewer children.
When the social ideal of the child-centered household means that children are terribly expensive, then couples will choose to have fewer children.
I do think that it is a responsible decision to choose to have a limited number of children for the sake of the environment (we seem to have obeyed one of God's commands, to fill the earth), but I suspect we have fewer children for lots of not-so-good reasons.
Category: Campaign 2008.13
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
My Two-Cents Worth (discounted to move fast):
My predictions:
• if Hillary wins both Indiana and North Carolina, she wins the nomination (the "math" be damned).
• if Obama wins either Indiana or North Carolina comfortably, she is finished. I did not think this two weeks ago—but the fact that she has pulled even in NC, ironically, makes it a must-win for her; if she loses big in Carolina, she will suffer from the recently inflated expectations there.
• however, if Hill wins in Indiana—but loses a tight race in NC in which she wins big with white voters, then Barack is in real trouble (see Jay Cost on the upcoming West Virginia primary).
• Of course, Hillary has been in sudden-death mode for months, for the first time in a long time the pressure in on O. He needs to win tonight. Let's see what kind of clutch player he really is. On the up side, a nice clear and convincing win in either state may well clinch the nomination for him.
One last non-prediction: as I have come to expect the unexpected in this battle, and, if truth be told, I am actually expecting a good night for Hilllary, I suppose we should actually prepare for the opposite: an evening in which Obama turns the tables and finally registers a knockout punch. We shall soon see.
My predictions:
• if Hillary wins both Indiana and North Carolina, she wins the nomination (the "math" be damned).
• if Obama wins either Indiana or North Carolina comfortably, she is finished. I did not think this two weeks ago—but the fact that she has pulled even in NC, ironically, makes it a must-win for her; if she loses big in Carolina, she will suffer from the recently inflated expectations there.
• however, if Hill wins in Indiana—but loses a tight race in NC in which she wins big with white voters, then Barack is in real trouble (see Jay Cost on the upcoming West Virginia primary).
• Of course, Hillary has been in sudden-death mode for months, for the first time in a long time the pressure in on O. He needs to win tonight. Let's see what kind of clutch player he really is. On the up side, a nice clear and convincing win in either state may well clinch the nomination for him.
One last non-prediction: as I have come to expect the unexpected in this battle, and, if truth be told, I am actually expecting a good night for Hilllary, I suppose we should actually prepare for the opposite: an evening in which Obama turns the tables and finally registers a knockout punch. We shall soon see.
06/05: UNTHINKABLE?
The always insightful Patrick Deneen is on fire again with this latest post:
"For many, the instant response to the growing evidence that the era of cheap energy is over is to insist upon its replacement with something else. Anything short of that is simply unacceptable, even inconceivable. A few years ago, when I began reading and writing about this great challenge we face as a civilization, I assumed that if I - and many others - were able to show the evidence and implications of peak oil, that people would be awoken from their dogmatic slumber and we would at once begin to arrange that we live together more responsibly and demand that our leaders help us toward that end. What I find instead is the absolute demand that something else be found in order to ensure that nothing has to change. So fully defined are we by our profligate way of life that nothing short of its permanent continuation can be deemed acceptable."
. . . .
"These immediate responses - the desperate wish to avoid, at all costs, the prospect of having to change our behavior - are the definite signs that we are not likely to change one iota until we have extracted every last possible form of energy that can be transformed into our active effort to control and master nature and to avoid the possibility of self-restraint. We do so thinking the alternative must be unthinkable, so awful and horrific to be unimaginable. A world built closer together, with greater stability of communities and requisite cooperation among neighbors in order to live, survive, and thrive, and absent the kinetic and kaleidoscopic activity of our age as well as the vast military empire needed to support and defend fuel supply lines - this is the prospect that we must avoid at all costs. We will accept ignorance of any atrocity we are committing in order to avoid an acceptance of limits, the forging of community and the reality of less. Of course, we only delay that day, and make it more likely that the transition to such a world will be violent, bloody and horrific. So long as we can power our IPODs just one more day..."
"For many, the instant response to the growing evidence that the era of cheap energy is over is to insist upon its replacement with something else. Anything short of that is simply unacceptable, even inconceivable. A few years ago, when I began reading and writing about this great challenge we face as a civilization, I assumed that if I - and many others - were able to show the evidence and implications of peak oil, that people would be awoken from their dogmatic slumber and we would at once begin to arrange that we live together more responsibly and demand that our leaders help us toward that end. What I find instead is the absolute demand that something else be found in order to ensure that nothing has to change. So fully defined are we by our profligate way of life that nothing short of its permanent continuation can be deemed acceptable."
. . . .
"These immediate responses - the desperate wish to avoid, at all costs, the prospect of having to change our behavior - are the definite signs that we are not likely to change one iota until we have extracted every last possible form of energy that can be transformed into our active effort to control and master nature and to avoid the possibility of self-restraint. We do so thinking the alternative must be unthinkable, so awful and horrific to be unimaginable. A world built closer together, with greater stability of communities and requisite cooperation among neighbors in order to live, survive, and thrive, and absent the kinetic and kaleidoscopic activity of our age as well as the vast military empire needed to support and defend fuel supply lines - this is the prospect that we must avoid at all costs. We will accept ignorance of any atrocity we are committing in order to avoid an acceptance of limits, the forging of community and the reality of less. Of course, we only delay that day, and make it more likely that the transition to such a world will be violent, bloody and horrific. So long as we can power our IPODs just one more day..."
North Carolina, 1990
"You needed that job, and you were the best qualified. But they had to give it to a minority because of a racial quota. Is that really fair?"
So began the infamous "hands" political ad in support of Jesse Helms for U.S. Senate, which emphasized Helms's black opponent (Harvey Gant) and his support for affirmative action by depicting a pair of white working man's hands presumably crumpling up a rejection letter from a prospective employer.
Just for the record, as I have written before, although reasonable people can disagree, I see the 1990 Helms-Gant ad as within the bounds of fair play and acceptable political discourse.
Cut to: North Carolina, 2008
Ironically, eighteen years later, the Tar Heel State is once again hosting a pivotal battle with national ramifications in a contest freighted with racial overtones.
Where Are We in this Contest?
Any honest observer at this point will admit that Hillary Clinton is on a roll and exceeding even the most optimistic expectations regarding her range and capacity as a candidate. Like the most recent Super Bowl champion incarnation of the New York Giants, Mrs. Clinton has peaked at the right moment in the season, playing at the top of her game when it counts the most.
On the other hand, Barack Obama finds himself bereft of momentum with no upswing in sight, (caution: about to switch sports metaphors) desperately trying to run the political version of the old Dean Smith "four corners" offense to preserve his precarious lead.
Nevertheless, even as more and more observers concede that the early Obama magic has all but evaporated, most pundits continue to write that the Democratic Party decision-makers would not dare deny their failing candidate the nomination at this point.
Why?
In large part, African Americans are the explanation. Right around 90 percent of African Americans vote Democratic in general elections (no other constituency in America even comes close in terms of fidelity). Moreover, during this primary season, 90-plus percent of African American Democrats have voted for Barack Obama (over the wife of their former hero, Bill Clinton).
Sub-question: why has Barack Obama been so successful in garnering the African American vote?
Frankly, it is much safer NOT to answer that query in our current political climate. For additional evidence concerning the pitfalls of offering impolitic analysis in this regard, see the strange case of that well-known racist, Bill Clinton, who famously suggested it might be akin to the reason so many African Americans voted for Jesse Jackson in 1984 and 1988.
The main point: the Democratic Party bigheads are intent on stuffing Obama down our throats, regardless of the trend lines, the revelations, the unfolding primary battle, or the growing sense that this forty-six year-old, half-term senator is not quite ready for the Oval Office.
Or, rather, to put it another way, Americans are belatedly realizing that we don't really know this fellow well enough to invest him with the most important and most powerful office in the history of humanity. We liked what we saw at first blush, but now we are seeing "a side" of him that gives us pause. In other words, we have gone from love at first sight to a fairly rational case of cold feet.
No matter, the Democratic Party brass continues to follow a preset script written during headier times.
Has Barack Obama Finally Become the Affirmative Action Candidate of 2008?
To paraphrase the Helms ad: the need for racial transcendence and keeping peace in the Democratic Party coalition suddenly "makes the color of your skin more important than your qualifications."
Frankly, I expect a backlash at some point. I think we may see it in North Carolina on Tuesday, which coudl derail the Obama train (or perhaps not). The fix may be in so deep at this point in the nomination contest that he is impervious even to humiliating defeat.
No matter, the backlash is out there--and it is going to buffet this race in some fashion.
On the other hand, an Obama victory in North Carolina and Indiana puts all this to bed. If he can beat Mrs. Clinton in a fair fight, it will be easy to see him as Tiger Woods (worthy and fabulous) once again.
But barring a clear victory on the field of battle, the elevation of Obama for all the wrong reasons makes for an exceedingly unappealing message.
"You needed that job, and you were the best qualified. But they had to give it to a minority because of a racial quota. Is that really fair?"
So began the infamous "hands" political ad in support of Jesse Helms for U.S. Senate, which emphasized Helms's black opponent (Harvey Gant) and his support for affirmative action by depicting a pair of white working man's hands presumably crumpling up a rejection letter from a prospective employer.
Just for the record, as I have written before, although reasonable people can disagree, I see the 1990 Helms-Gant ad as within the bounds of fair play and acceptable political discourse.
Cut to: North Carolina, 2008
Ironically, eighteen years later, the Tar Heel State is once again hosting a pivotal battle with national ramifications in a contest freighted with racial overtones.
Where Are We in this Contest?
Any honest observer at this point will admit that Hillary Clinton is on a roll and exceeding even the most optimistic expectations regarding her range and capacity as a candidate. Like the most recent Super Bowl champion incarnation of the New York Giants, Mrs. Clinton has peaked at the right moment in the season, playing at the top of her game when it counts the most.
On the other hand, Barack Obama finds himself bereft of momentum with no upswing in sight, (caution: about to switch sports metaphors) desperately trying to run the political version of the old Dean Smith "four corners" offense to preserve his precarious lead.
Nevertheless, even as more and more observers concede that the early Obama magic has all but evaporated, most pundits continue to write that the Democratic Party decision-makers would not dare deny their failing candidate the nomination at this point.
Why?
In large part, African Americans are the explanation. Right around 90 percent of African Americans vote Democratic in general elections (no other constituency in America even comes close in terms of fidelity). Moreover, during this primary season, 90-plus percent of African American Democrats have voted for Barack Obama (over the wife of their former hero, Bill Clinton).
Sub-question: why has Barack Obama been so successful in garnering the African American vote?
Frankly, it is much safer NOT to answer that query in our current political climate. For additional evidence concerning the pitfalls of offering impolitic analysis in this regard, see the strange case of that well-known racist, Bill Clinton, who famously suggested it might be akin to the reason so many African Americans voted for Jesse Jackson in 1984 and 1988.
The main point: the Democratic Party bigheads are intent on stuffing Obama down our throats, regardless of the trend lines, the revelations, the unfolding primary battle, or the growing sense that this forty-six year-old, half-term senator is not quite ready for the Oval Office.
Or, rather, to put it another way, Americans are belatedly realizing that we don't really know this fellow well enough to invest him with the most important and most powerful office in the history of humanity. We liked what we saw at first blush, but now we are seeing "a side" of him that gives us pause. In other words, we have gone from love at first sight to a fairly rational case of cold feet.
No matter, the Democratic Party brass continues to follow a preset script written during headier times.
Has Barack Obama Finally Become the Affirmative Action Candidate of 2008?
To paraphrase the Helms ad: the need for racial transcendence and keeping peace in the Democratic Party coalition suddenly "makes the color of your skin more important than your qualifications."
Frankly, I expect a backlash at some point. I think we may see it in North Carolina on Tuesday, which coudl derail the Obama train (or perhaps not). The fix may be in so deep at this point in the nomination contest that he is impervious even to humiliating defeat.
No matter, the backlash is out there--and it is going to buffet this race in some fashion.
On the other hand, an Obama victory in North Carolina and Indiana puts all this to bed. If he can beat Mrs. Clinton in a fair fight, it will be easy to see him as Tiger Woods (worthy and fabulous) once again.
But barring a clear victory on the field of battle, the elevation of Obama for all the wrong reasons makes for an exceedingly unappealing message.
I appreciate the Okie Gardener's recent thoughts on Global Warming (and his prior musings), which always reflect a true respect for the scientific method and classic conservatism, rather than the all too common blow-hard varieties of both.
As was noted earlier this week by a friend who knows me well, my knowledge of science is fairly elementary. Perhaps as a result, the Global Warming jokes are hard to pass up. A few months ago, I noted wryly that I spent the night at Gate C-29 at DFW, snowed-in during early March. I confess that I cannot help but get a chuckle every time an Al Gore conference on Global Warming is canceled on account of a 100-year blizzard. And every morning in May that I wake up in Central Texas with the temperature in the high-40s (and then told Global Warming is actually making things cooler before they get unbearably Hellish), I tend to become more skeptical of the UN, NASA, Brad Pitt, and the Hollywood intelligentsia.
Notwithstanding, I agree wholeheartedly with the Gardener's call for better stewardship of Creation and his exhortation to thoughtfully consider genuinely alarming potentialities despite the asinine alarmists.
Minus my intro concering some Texas football history, I am reissuing this concurring opinion based on what I consider a non-scientific, common-sense approach:
The predicament: Finite resources and exponential population growth equals a problem at some point in human history. Thus far, dramatic advances in technology and an amazingly dynamic and productive economic system have outpaced the inherent difficulty --and made the Malthusian predictions of scarcity during the nineteenth century the butt of modern derision.
However, do we really think that this planet will sustain 10 billion people? Twenty billion? Thirty billion? Do we think the United States will sustain a billion? Two billion? Do we think the American Southwest can continue to meet its water needs in perpetuity?
Does it alarm anyone other than me that we have become accustomed to a luxuriously abundant lifestyle that is predicated on an expanding economy, which is dependent on a growing, building, and expanding civilization, which requires the creation and infusion of more and more inhabitants into an environment with finite resources. There are limits. Where those limits actually exist--perhaps no one can say with certainty. However, undoubtedly, there must be a point at which our demand for potable water, breathable air, and fossil fuels to run our modern world exceeds the planet's capacity to offer them up.
Note: back when I first posted this, Tocqueville directed us to a timeless and provocative piece by Fred Ikle: Growth Without End, Amen. It is a must-read, if you missed it.
As was noted earlier this week by a friend who knows me well, my knowledge of science is fairly elementary. Perhaps as a result, the Global Warming jokes are hard to pass up. A few months ago, I noted wryly that I spent the night at Gate C-29 at DFW, snowed-in during early March. I confess that I cannot help but get a chuckle every time an Al Gore conference on Global Warming is canceled on account of a 100-year blizzard. And every morning in May that I wake up in Central Texas with the temperature in the high-40s (and then told Global Warming is actually making things cooler before they get unbearably Hellish), I tend to become more skeptical of the UN, NASA, Brad Pitt, and the Hollywood intelligentsia.
Notwithstanding, I agree wholeheartedly with the Gardener's call for better stewardship of Creation and his exhortation to thoughtfully consider genuinely alarming potentialities despite the asinine alarmists.
Minus my intro concering some Texas football history, I am reissuing this concurring opinion based on what I consider a non-scientific, common-sense approach:
The predicament: Finite resources and exponential population growth equals a problem at some point in human history. Thus far, dramatic advances in technology and an amazingly dynamic and productive economic system have outpaced the inherent difficulty --and made the Malthusian predictions of scarcity during the nineteenth century the butt of modern derision.
However, do we really think that this planet will sustain 10 billion people? Twenty billion? Thirty billion? Do we think the United States will sustain a billion? Two billion? Do we think the American Southwest can continue to meet its water needs in perpetuity?
Does it alarm anyone other than me that we have become accustomed to a luxuriously abundant lifestyle that is predicated on an expanding economy, which is dependent on a growing, building, and expanding civilization, which requires the creation and infusion of more and more inhabitants into an environment with finite resources. There are limits. Where those limits actually exist--perhaps no one can say with certainty. However, undoubtedly, there must be a point at which our demand for potable water, breathable air, and fossil fuels to run our modern world exceeds the planet's capacity to offer them up.
Note: back when I first posted this, Tocqueville directed us to a timeless and provocative piece by Fred Ikle: Growth Without End, Amen. It is a must-read, if you missed it.
Category: America and the World
Posted by: an okie gardener
The Labour Party is going down in flames in local elections in Great Britain. According to The Telegraph, as of this posting The Conservatives are winning big. Conservatives are picking up around 44% of the votes, with Liberal Democrats and Labour fighting it out for second with about 25/24%. The infamous mayor of London, Red Ken, appears to have lost reelection.
One issue not emphasized enough in the coverage is the Labour Party breaking its promise to hold a referendum on imposing the EU Constitution on Great Britain. The High Court has just agreed to hear a case challenging the Labour government's refusal to hole a referendum. Story here with links.
If the EU Constitution is imposed on Britain it will supercede the traditional British Constitution, the ancestor and model for our own liberties as Americans. In many ways the EU is a step back from liberty, turning way too much power over to unelected bureacratic elites far removed from local conditions and not subject to local control.
If you are interested in keeping up with liberty across the pond, one source is Open Europe. For a summary of the implications see this post from Brits At Their Best.
Lest you think I exagerate, remember that presumption of innocence at trial is found in the British Constitution, but is not shared by many other systems, including, for example, the French justice system.
One issue not emphasized enough in the coverage is the Labour Party breaking its promise to hold a referendum on imposing the EU Constitution on Great Britain. The High Court has just agreed to hear a case challenging the Labour government's refusal to hole a referendum. Story here with links.
If the EU Constitution is imposed on Britain it will supercede the traditional British Constitution, the ancestor and model for our own liberties as Americans. In many ways the EU is a step back from liberty, turning way too much power over to unelected bureacratic elites far removed from local conditions and not subject to local control.
If you are interested in keeping up with liberty across the pond, one source is Open Europe. For a summary of the implications see this post from Brits At Their Best.
Lest you think I exagerate, remember that presumption of innocence at trial is found in the British Constitution, but is not shared by many other systems, including, for example, the French justice system.
