19/04: The More Things Change...
Commenting on the recent ABC debate, Barack Obama lamented:
"Last night we set a new record. It took us 45 minutes ... before we heard about health care. Forty-five minutes before we heard about Iraq. Forty-five minutes before we heard about jobs. That's how Washington is."
Hillary's pointed and cleverly effective response:
"Having been in the White House for eight years, and seen what happens in terms of the pressures and stresses on a president, that was nothing."
"I'm with Harry Truman on this: If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. Speaking for myself, I'm very comfortable in the kitchen."
Score another rhetorical point for Hillary. The mainstream media crush on Obama has spoiled him. Aspirants to the presidency should expect hostile questions. It is time to "toughen this kid up."
The other point, of course, which begs address? Obama displays a ridiculous lack of self-awareness in complaining that no one wants to talk about the issues.
Which issues?
The issue of change, perhaps? The issues of guaranteed healthcare, risk-free mortgages, peace and prosperity, national solvency combined with universal affluence, and, don't forget, domestic political tranquility? We are going to achieve all these things and the lambs are going to lie down with the lions.
But those are not issues; they are merely bromides.
The real issues, just to name just a few: reconciling our nanny-state mentality with our finite resources. Social Security? Medicare? Bailouts? How to withdraw from Iraq, decrease military spending, down-size the army, and preserve our preeminent place and relative security in a hostile and changing world? Preserving a unifying nationalism in an increasingly apathetic and individualistic nation?
In reality, Senator Obama has no intention of addressing any truly pressing dilemmas with anything more specific than a "be the change you seek."
No candidate has done more to make this an issue-free presidential campaign than Barack Obama. Not that I blame him. This is the game--and it is an old game.
For kicks, reflect on this passage concerning the Election of 1848 taken from David M. Potter's The Impending Crisis (1976):
"The ambiguity of [Democratic nominee Lewis] Cass's position might well have won him the election in a more normal year, but the Whigs showed a talent for evasion that made the Democrats seem decisive by comparison."
The Whigs of 1848 passed over their experienced party leader and well-known warhorse, Henry Clay, to tap Zachary Taylor, who claimed no prior party affiliation (and had never even voted in a presidential election), but was a newly minted war hero whose political views were a mystery to voters.
Potter again: "While the Democrats had adopted a platform whose meaning no one could be sure about, the Whigs found a way to be evasive without equivocation: they adopted no platform at all."
"After a campaign in which most participants furiously avoided the issues, Taylor...won the election."
This is the way to win the presidency!
The game has always been to tell us as little as possible about yourself without being such a blank slate that you appear dangerously ill-equipped for the office.
Zachary Taylor ran a successful military campaign in a successful war. He might be a good president. You get the picture.
We are likely to fall for this ruse from time to time.
But Senator Obama reaches another level of arrogance and duplicity entirely when he lashes out with self-righteous calumny, accusing others of doing what has, in fact, formed the bedrock of his campaign: placing personality over serious policy proposals and problem solving.
"Last night we set a new record. It took us 45 minutes ... before we heard about health care. Forty-five minutes before we heard about Iraq. Forty-five minutes before we heard about jobs. That's how Washington is."
Hillary's pointed and cleverly effective response:
"Having been in the White House for eight years, and seen what happens in terms of the pressures and stresses on a president, that was nothing."
"I'm with Harry Truman on this: If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. Speaking for myself, I'm very comfortable in the kitchen."
Score another rhetorical point for Hillary. The mainstream media crush on Obama has spoiled him. Aspirants to the presidency should expect hostile questions. It is time to "toughen this kid up."
The other point, of course, which begs address? Obama displays a ridiculous lack of self-awareness in complaining that no one wants to talk about the issues.
Which issues?
The issue of change, perhaps? The issues of guaranteed healthcare, risk-free mortgages, peace and prosperity, national solvency combined with universal affluence, and, don't forget, domestic political tranquility? We are going to achieve all these things and the lambs are going to lie down with the lions.
But those are not issues; they are merely bromides.
The real issues, just to name just a few: reconciling our nanny-state mentality with our finite resources. Social Security? Medicare? Bailouts? How to withdraw from Iraq, decrease military spending, down-size the army, and preserve our preeminent place and relative security in a hostile and changing world? Preserving a unifying nationalism in an increasingly apathetic and individualistic nation?
In reality, Senator Obama has no intention of addressing any truly pressing dilemmas with anything more specific than a "be the change you seek."
No candidate has done more to make this an issue-free presidential campaign than Barack Obama. Not that I blame him. This is the game--and it is an old game.
For kicks, reflect on this passage concerning the Election of 1848 taken from David M. Potter's The Impending Crisis (1976):
"The ambiguity of [Democratic nominee Lewis] Cass's position might well have won him the election in a more normal year, but the Whigs showed a talent for evasion that made the Democrats seem decisive by comparison."
The Whigs of 1848 passed over their experienced party leader and well-known warhorse, Henry Clay, to tap Zachary Taylor, who claimed no prior party affiliation (and had never even voted in a presidential election), but was a newly minted war hero whose political views were a mystery to voters.
Potter again: "While the Democrats had adopted a platform whose meaning no one could be sure about, the Whigs found a way to be evasive without equivocation: they adopted no platform at all."
"After a campaign in which most participants furiously avoided the issues, Taylor...won the election."
This is the way to win the presidency!
The game has always been to tell us as little as possible about yourself without being such a blank slate that you appear dangerously ill-equipped for the office.
Zachary Taylor ran a successful military campaign in a successful war. He might be a good president. You get the picture.
We are likely to fall for this ruse from time to time.
But Senator Obama reaches another level of arrogance and duplicity entirely when he lashes out with self-righteous calumny, accusing others of doing what has, in fact, formed the bedrock of his campaign: placing personality over serious policy proposals and problem solving.
19/04: Sex and Power
Category: General
Posted by: an okie gardener
We have a scandal here in Oklahoma involving sex and power. A male county sheriff has been charged with forcing female inmates to perform sex acts. Drudge has the link to this article. The sheriff has not yet been tried, so we'll presume innocence until proven guilty, but I do want to offer a few thoughts.
People have misused their God-given sexuality since sin entered the world. But it seems in our day we are reaching new lows. On South Park this week, the characters reacted to the internet drying up as it slowed from a river to a trickle. In a parody of Grapes of Wrath, millions of people piled belongings on their cars and headed for California, where rumor had it Silicon Valley had service available. Different people missed different things--email, instant messaging, news, and porn. (For those of you unfamiliar with South Park, it is an often brilliant satire on contemporary culture, but is usually vulgar.) Here is a clip from the official site. Living in camps along the way, Randy tries to feed his internet porn addiction. As he tells someone: once you've been able to see Japanese women vomiting into each other's mouths, you can't go back to Playboy. Some men have set up a tent to provide "virtual internet." He goes in where he is told to sit in front of a fake screen and say outloud his search terms, then say click. After he calls out each of his (disturbing and disgusting) search categories, a hand drawing is lowered into the screen. The "virtual internet" doesn't work for him. But when they get to California the Red Cross has set up a camp and provides small doses of internet by lottery. That night he breaks into the trailer where the computer is locked up, looking for his fix.
more below
People have misused their God-given sexuality since sin entered the world. But it seems in our day we are reaching new lows. On South Park this week, the characters reacted to the internet drying up as it slowed from a river to a trickle. In a parody of Grapes of Wrath, millions of people piled belongings on their cars and headed for California, where rumor had it Silicon Valley had service available. Different people missed different things--email, instant messaging, news, and porn. (For those of you unfamiliar with South Park, it is an often brilliant satire on contemporary culture, but is usually vulgar.) Here is a clip from the official site. Living in camps along the way, Randy tries to feed his internet porn addiction. As he tells someone: once you've been able to see Japanese women vomiting into each other's mouths, you can't go back to Playboy. Some men have set up a tent to provide "virtual internet." He goes in where he is told to sit in front of a fake screen and say outloud his search terms, then say click. After he calls out each of his (disturbing and disgusting) search categories, a hand drawing is lowered into the screen. The "virtual internet" doesn't work for him. But when they get to California the Red Cross has set up a camp and provides small doses of internet by lottery. That night he breaks into the trailer where the computer is locked up, looking for his fix.
more below
Category: Campaign 2008.11
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
A few weeks ago, I asserted that the real danger for Democrats this summer was not injuring one another playing hardball politics but in nominating the most unapologetically liberal candidate since George McGovern.
During the past three weeks, this analysis has become ubiquitous.
The Democrats have committed a foolish strategic error, which they cannot easily repair. However, despite our growing euphoric optimism, we should not lose sight of where we really are.
No matter what happens between now and August, this remains a Democratic year.
The eventual Democratic candidate of 2008 will run buoyed by intense George W. Bush fatigue. The electorate is restless with an unpopular five-year war with no end in sight, and the uncertainty concerning the economy always plays in favor of the out-party.
The eventual Democratic candidate of 2008 will run against a presumptive Republican nominee who is seventy-one-years-old, who is admittedly inexpert on the economic questions, and who stubbornly (albeit bravely) advocates extending the five-year war indefinitely.
Bottom Line. Incontrovertible Fact. This is a good year to run as a Democrat.
Other things to consider:
1. When Obama finally clinches the nomination, he will receive a tremendous bounce. All the bad will be forgotten, and the new storyline will be the impending "rout" on McCain.
2. Even with the ongoing love affair that is Obama and the national press corps, the Clintons retain enough power and possibility to influence media coverage right now. This will not be true of John McCain during the fall election. Barack Obama will enjoy protection from the mainstream media from Labor Day through the first Tuesday in November. Don't hold your breath waiting for George Stephanopoulos to ask irritating questions of the Democratic nominee during the homestretch. On the other hand, John McCain will face withering wall-to-wall coverage of every gaffe, potential hypocritical anomaly, and every ache and pain.
The media onslaught aimed at McCain is going to be brutal.
3. Finally, while McCain appeals to moderates, conservatives continue to revile him. Of course, they are closer to him philosophically than Obama or Clinton--but that may not be the question.
Conservatism (and right-wing talkers) do well with conservative leaders, and they do well with a liberal leader against whom they may fulminate, but "moderate" Republicans are much more troublesome.
Will conservatives get on board the McCain train? Only if it is in their interest. Does a McCain presidency further the interest of movement conservatism? The answer to that question will very likely determine the election.
Because the Democrats have erred so egregiously, Republicans have a chance. But is only a slim chance. A long General Election night for the GOP remains the most likely scenario in our future.
During the past three weeks, this analysis has become ubiquitous.
The Democrats have committed a foolish strategic error, which they cannot easily repair. However, despite our growing euphoric optimism, we should not lose sight of where we really are.
No matter what happens between now and August, this remains a Democratic year.
The eventual Democratic candidate of 2008 will run buoyed by intense George W. Bush fatigue. The electorate is restless with an unpopular five-year war with no end in sight, and the uncertainty concerning the economy always plays in favor of the out-party.
The eventual Democratic candidate of 2008 will run against a presumptive Republican nominee who is seventy-one-years-old, who is admittedly inexpert on the economic questions, and who stubbornly (albeit bravely) advocates extending the five-year war indefinitely.
Bottom Line. Incontrovertible Fact. This is a good year to run as a Democrat.
Other things to consider:
1. When Obama finally clinches the nomination, he will receive a tremendous bounce. All the bad will be forgotten, and the new storyline will be the impending "rout" on McCain.
2. Even with the ongoing love affair that is Obama and the national press corps, the Clintons retain enough power and possibility to influence media coverage right now. This will not be true of John McCain during the fall election. Barack Obama will enjoy protection from the mainstream media from Labor Day through the first Tuesday in November. Don't hold your breath waiting for George Stephanopoulos to ask irritating questions of the Democratic nominee during the homestretch. On the other hand, John McCain will face withering wall-to-wall coverage of every gaffe, potential hypocritical anomaly, and every ache and pain.
The media onslaught aimed at McCain is going to be brutal.
3. Finally, while McCain appeals to moderates, conservatives continue to revile him. Of course, they are closer to him philosophically than Obama or Clinton--but that may not be the question.
Conservatism (and right-wing talkers) do well with conservative leaders, and they do well with a liberal leader against whom they may fulminate, but "moderate" Republicans are much more troublesome.
Will conservatives get on board the McCain train? Only if it is in their interest. Does a McCain presidency further the interest of movement conservatism? The answer to that question will very likely determine the election.
Because the Democrats have erred so egregiously, Republicans have a chance. But is only a slim chance. A long General Election night for the GOP remains the most likely scenario in our future.
18/04: Has Icarus Finally Fallen?
Category: Politics
Posted by: Tocqueville
The New York Times's David Brooks explains How Obama Fell to Earth:
"When Obama began this ride, he seemed like a transcendent figure who could understand a wide variety of life experiences. But over the past months, things have happened that make him seem more like my old neighbors in Hyde Park in Chicago."
"Some of us love Hyde Park for its diversity and quirkiness, as there are those who love Cambridge and Berkeley. But it is among the more academic and liberal places around. When Obama goes to a church infused with James Cone-style liberation theology, when he makes ill-informed comments about working-class voters, when he bowls a 37 for crying out loud, voters are going to wonder if he’s one of them. Obama has to address those doubts, and he has done so poorly up to now."
"It was inevitable that the period of “Yes We Can!” deification would come to an end. It was not inevitable that Obama would now look so vulnerable. He’ll win the nomination, but in a matchup against John McCain, he is behind in Florida, Missouri and Ohio, and merely tied in must-win states like Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. A generic Democrat now beats a generic Republican by 13 points, but Obama is trailing his own party. One in five Democrats say they would vote for McCain over Obama."
"When Obama began this ride, he seemed like a transcendent figure who could understand a wide variety of life experiences. But over the past months, things have happened that make him seem more like my old neighbors in Hyde Park in Chicago."
"Some of us love Hyde Park for its diversity and quirkiness, as there are those who love Cambridge and Berkeley. But it is among the more academic and liberal places around. When Obama goes to a church infused with James Cone-style liberation theology, when he makes ill-informed comments about working-class voters, when he bowls a 37 for crying out loud, voters are going to wonder if he’s one of them. Obama has to address those doubts, and he has done so poorly up to now."
"It was inevitable that the period of “Yes We Can!” deification would come to an end. It was not inevitable that Obama would now look so vulnerable. He’ll win the nomination, but in a matchup against John McCain, he is behind in Florida, Missouri and Ohio, and merely tied in must-win states like Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. A generic Democrat now beats a generic Republican by 13 points, but Obama is trailing his own party. One in five Democrats say they would vote for McCain over Obama."
18/04: The Two Wars in Iraq
Category: America and the World
Posted by: an okie gardener
A very thoughtful analysis on The Jawa Report.
He argues that we need to begin speaking of Iraq War 1, which was to topple Saddam's regime, and Iraq War 2, which is against various Islamists especially Al Qaeda. Iraq War 1 is over. There is nothing to be gained in continuing to debate it. It is a misleading practice of political leadership to continue to talk about opposing THE war in Iraq. The issue to discuss is Iraq War 2 against the various Islamists. But we must achieve mental and verbal clarity to do so.
Read the whole thing.
Link from Instapundit.
He argues that we need to begin speaking of Iraq War 1, which was to topple Saddam's regime, and Iraq War 2, which is against various Islamists especially Al Qaeda. Iraq War 1 is over. There is nothing to be gained in continuing to debate it. It is a misleading practice of political leadership to continue to talk about opposing THE war in Iraq. The issue to discuss is Iraq War 2 against the various Islamists. But we must achieve mental and verbal clarity to do so.
Read the whole thing.
Link from Instapundit.
Category: Campaign 2008.11
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
A few hundred years ago, Joe Biden said of Barack Obama:
"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man."
Irony of Ironies: is Obama actually less articulate than we assumed? Of course, if articulate means "using language easily and fluently and persuasively," he is one of the most articulate national politicians to come down the pike in decades. But, if articulate means "silver-tongued," as in sharp and quick on his feet verbally, he is not nearly as fluid as we once thought.
His lackluster performance in the latest debate brings this home--but we have noticed for some time that he is much better standing alone at a podium delivering a speech than engaging in fast-paced conversational give-and-take on a stage with other political sharpies.
Why have we been slow to see this? Part of the problem lies in our prejudices (or to use a more benign phrase: our expectations). If he is to be the next great black leader, he must be a great speaker.
Part of the problem is that his real talent is confusingly connected to his oratory. His speeches can be incredibly moving (although I know a curiously high number of people who find him a total bore as a speech maker). But for the most part, he is an exciting speaker--after all, the girls aren't swooning for nothing.
But the key to Barack Obama's appeal is not necessarily his speaking ability. In truth, his uniqueness lies in his brilliance as a writer. In essence, he competently reads his outstanding speeches.
For all his gifts of persuasion, Obama is much more plodding law professor than he is scintillating trial attorney.
"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man."
Irony of Ironies: is Obama actually less articulate than we assumed? Of course, if articulate means "using language easily and fluently and persuasively," he is one of the most articulate national politicians to come down the pike in decades. But, if articulate means "silver-tongued," as in sharp and quick on his feet verbally, he is not nearly as fluid as we once thought.
His lackluster performance in the latest debate brings this home--but we have noticed for some time that he is much better standing alone at a podium delivering a speech than engaging in fast-paced conversational give-and-take on a stage with other political sharpies.
Why have we been slow to see this? Part of the problem lies in our prejudices (or to use a more benign phrase: our expectations). If he is to be the next great black leader, he must be a great speaker.
Part of the problem is that his real talent is confusingly connected to his oratory. His speeches can be incredibly moving (although I know a curiously high number of people who find him a total bore as a speech maker). But for the most part, he is an exciting speaker--after all, the girls aren't swooning for nothing.
But the key to Barack Obama's appeal is not necessarily his speaking ability. In truth, his uniqueness lies in his brilliance as a writer. In essence, he competently reads his outstanding speeches.
For all his gifts of persuasion, Obama is much more plodding law professor than he is scintillating trial attorney.
Category: America and the World
Posted by: an okie gardener
The government of China has a disgusting track record of support for dictators in Africa. China is the key supporter of the genocidal government of The Sudan. And now, this story, on Chinese arms shipments to the beserk government of Mugabe whose rule is killing his own people of Zimbabwe.
From Gateway Pundit.
These sorts of actions are what you get when a government has no moral principles. Mere power politics, so what if the peasants die. Still buying Made in China?
TODAY GATEWAY PUNDIT HAS THIS UPDATE:
But thank goodness for union workers...
The South African Transport and Allied Workers Union announced today that they would not unload the ship's cargo.
News 24 reported:
Durban - Opposition to a shipment of arms being offloaded in Durban and transported to Zimbabwe increased on Thursday when South Africa's biggest transport workers' union announced that its members would not unload the ship.
SA Transport and Allied Workers Union (Satawu) general secretary Randall Howard said: "Satawu does not agree with the position of the South African government not to intervene with this shipment of weapons.
From Gateway Pundit.
These sorts of actions are what you get when a government has no moral principles. Mere power politics, so what if the peasants die. Still buying Made in China?
TODAY GATEWAY PUNDIT HAS THIS UPDATE:
But thank goodness for union workers...
The South African Transport and Allied Workers Union announced today that they would not unload the ship's cargo.
News 24 reported:
Durban - Opposition to a shipment of arms being offloaded in Durban and transported to Zimbabwe increased on Thursday when South Africa's biggest transport workers' union announced that its members would not unload the ship.
SA Transport and Allied Workers Union (Satawu) general secretary Randall Howard said: "Satawu does not agree with the position of the South African government not to intervene with this shipment of weapons.
Category: American History and Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
The Okie Gardener wrote today:
"I see [Hillary] conceding and withdrawing from the race only if she is convinced that Obama will lose to McCain, that McCain because of age will serve only one term, and that she then will be well-placed for 2012."
Some revised and extended comments in response to that assertion, which strikes me as plausible but uncharitable.
Hillary is, in fact, laboring under two reasonable assumptions:
1. It ain't over until the Fat Lady sings (nothing is more American than that). If you are not in it, you cannot win it. One thing we can say for sure: Barack Obama will NOT arrive in Denver with a sewn-up nomination--unless Mrs. Clinton steps aside (or the superdelegates come together earlier to preempt the "impending crisis"). Hillary is hoping for a late-round knock-out, which is not unfathomable. Do we really think we have heard the last Obama revelation? The bottom could drop out of the Obama market between now and mid-summer. Not likely, but certainly not impossible.
2. Mrs. Clinton honestly believes (and I agree) that she is a much more formidable general election candidate than Obama. Are we not more and more persuaded with each passing week that her primary opponent has some seriously inviting weak spots? We are increasingly optimistic about running against this "young man in a hurry." Bring him on. As I have said repeatedly, this is a bad year to run as a Republican--but Barack Obama's dedication to liberal orthodoxy, and his tin ear for Red-State culture, gives me some hope for victory.
And, one more factor, Mrs. Clinton is also laboring under the not so reasonable (but, nevertheless, absolutely essential) delusion of all presidential aspirants: "I am the very best candidate for the job."
In other words, Mrs. Clinton believes with all her soul that she is exactly what America needs right now, and she must suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune and go the distance to save us. For this reason she should not quit, just as Ronald Reagan did not quit in 1976.
In that vein, the Gardener asserts that she is attempting to secure the defeat of her opponent to position herself for the next campaign. While I concede that thought may be a variable, I tend to believe it is way down the list of important considerations. And, if that is her plan, it is awfully risky and probably too clever by half.
I am more inclined to believe that she sees this present opportunity as her one and only chance--which strikes me as a much more compelling explanation for her refusal to throw in the towel. She is fighting like there is no tomorrow--and she is most likely correct.
There is no doubt that she does damage to Obama by staying in. Of the three remaining candidates, he is the most vulnerable to extended close scrutiny. What more are we going to learn about Hillary or John McCain? On the other hand, each day brings another facet to our perception of Barack Obama.
Why would she do that?
Who knows, she may actually favor McCain over Obama (and for reasons wholly apart from her electoral chances in 2012). Not that I am predicting that she will endorse McCain in any way. Hill and Bill will line up behind Barack like good soldiers (Joe Lieberman supported John Kerry in 2004). But I think Hillary might see a McCain win over Barack Obama as more than just good politics for her personally, and even more than merely just desserts for a disloyal party. I think she might actually believe in her heart of hearts (or even sub-consciously) that Barack Obama is too much of a "dice roll."
One last thought: why my sympathetic conjecture in defense of Hillary's motives?
I suspect Hillary is no more evil-minded and selfish than Andrew Jackson or Henry Clay. Politics tends to make us see the worst in our opponents. Certainly, Jackson and Clay partisans saw the other side as unscrupulous, diabolical, and traitorous. We tend to see the opposition in the same light today.
This fits a basic pattern in American politics in which we tend to lionize their current party champions, demonize their contemporary political foes, and then canonize them all in a non-partisan burst of patriotic ardor once they have been dead long enough.
Clay and Jackson were fallible men with great qualities and serious faults. Their greatness was partly the product of ambition, self delusion, and an ability and willingness to deliver and suffer vicious blows in the public arena. Their darker sides drew from the same pool of personal traits. Bill Clinton has it right: politics is not for the faint of heart. Hillary is in the tradition of those multi-faceted characters from the past.
"I see [Hillary] conceding and withdrawing from the race only if she is convinced that Obama will lose to McCain, that McCain because of age will serve only one term, and that she then will be well-placed for 2012."
Some revised and extended comments in response to that assertion, which strikes me as plausible but uncharitable.
Hillary is, in fact, laboring under two reasonable assumptions:
1. It ain't over until the Fat Lady sings (nothing is more American than that). If you are not in it, you cannot win it. One thing we can say for sure: Barack Obama will NOT arrive in Denver with a sewn-up nomination--unless Mrs. Clinton steps aside (or the superdelegates come together earlier to preempt the "impending crisis"). Hillary is hoping for a late-round knock-out, which is not unfathomable. Do we really think we have heard the last Obama revelation? The bottom could drop out of the Obama market between now and mid-summer. Not likely, but certainly not impossible.
2. Mrs. Clinton honestly believes (and I agree) that she is a much more formidable general election candidate than Obama. Are we not more and more persuaded with each passing week that her primary opponent has some seriously inviting weak spots? We are increasingly optimistic about running against this "young man in a hurry." Bring him on. As I have said repeatedly, this is a bad year to run as a Republican--but Barack Obama's dedication to liberal orthodoxy, and his tin ear for Red-State culture, gives me some hope for victory.
And, one more factor, Mrs. Clinton is also laboring under the not so reasonable (but, nevertheless, absolutely essential) delusion of all presidential aspirants: "I am the very best candidate for the job."
In other words, Mrs. Clinton believes with all her soul that she is exactly what America needs right now, and she must suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune and go the distance to save us. For this reason she should not quit, just as Ronald Reagan did not quit in 1976.
In that vein, the Gardener asserts that she is attempting to secure the defeat of her opponent to position herself for the next campaign. While I concede that thought may be a variable, I tend to believe it is way down the list of important considerations. And, if that is her plan, it is awfully risky and probably too clever by half.
I am more inclined to believe that she sees this present opportunity as her one and only chance--which strikes me as a much more compelling explanation for her refusal to throw in the towel. She is fighting like there is no tomorrow--and she is most likely correct.
There is no doubt that she does damage to Obama by staying in. Of the three remaining candidates, he is the most vulnerable to extended close scrutiny. What more are we going to learn about Hillary or John McCain? On the other hand, each day brings another facet to our perception of Barack Obama.
Why would she do that?
Who knows, she may actually favor McCain over Obama (and for reasons wholly apart from her electoral chances in 2012). Not that I am predicting that she will endorse McCain in any way. Hill and Bill will line up behind Barack like good soldiers (Joe Lieberman supported John Kerry in 2004). But I think Hillary might see a McCain win over Barack Obama as more than just good politics for her personally, and even more than merely just desserts for a disloyal party. I think she might actually believe in her heart of hearts (or even sub-consciously) that Barack Obama is too much of a "dice roll."
One last thought: why my sympathetic conjecture in defense of Hillary's motives?
I suspect Hillary is no more evil-minded and selfish than Andrew Jackson or Henry Clay. Politics tends to make us see the worst in our opponents. Certainly, Jackson and Clay partisans saw the other side as unscrupulous, diabolical, and traitorous. We tend to see the opposition in the same light today.
This fits a basic pattern in American politics in which we tend to lionize their current party champions, demonize their contemporary political foes, and then canonize them all in a non-partisan burst of patriotic ardor once they have been dead long enough.
Clay and Jackson were fallible men with great qualities and serious faults. Their greatness was partly the product of ambition, self delusion, and an ability and willingness to deliver and suffer vicious blows in the public arena. Their darker sides drew from the same pool of personal traits. Bill Clinton has it right: politics is not for the faint of heart. Hillary is in the tradition of those multi-faceted characters from the past.
16/04: Human-Animal Hybrids:
Category: Religion & Public Policy
Posted by: an okie gardener
This story from Britain is now a bit old, but the issue will not go away.
Scientists are mixing human and animal DNA to produce hybrid organisms.
The government says that the scientific advantages of allowing the creation of hybrid embryos for research purposes could help millions of people to recover from illness or disease.
Religious leaders, however, have argued against the bill, with the leader of Catholics in Scotland, Cardinal Keith O'Brien, using his Easter Sunday sermon to brand the bill a "monstrous attack on human rights, human dignity and human life" which will allow experiments of "Frankenstein proportion".
I have expressed myself already on this issue here and here. Basically, I think that
One of the foundation stones of our culture has been the idea/belief that humans are unique. We hold ourselves to standards we do not apply to animals--a dog may be put down for killing a person, but will not be put on trial. A man may be charged with killing a dog, but it will not be a murder charge. We may protest the construction of a new dam on a river, but will not hold a protest at the site of a beaver dam. If while driving, the only two choices are hitting an animal, and having a head-on with another car, we run over the animal. If we are stranded with another person and a dog, and have only enough food for two persons, we feed the other person and let the dog starve, or eat it. And so on.
Animal-human hybrids raise profoundly disturbing questions. But, science has no mechanism within itself to consider whether or not something that can be done should be done. Science cannot ask or answer "should" questions. We must turn to philosophy and religion.
Scientists are mixing human and animal DNA to produce hybrid organisms.
The government says that the scientific advantages of allowing the creation of hybrid embryos for research purposes could help millions of people to recover from illness or disease.
Religious leaders, however, have argued against the bill, with the leader of Catholics in Scotland, Cardinal Keith O'Brien, using his Easter Sunday sermon to brand the bill a "monstrous attack on human rights, human dignity and human life" which will allow experiments of "Frankenstein proportion".
I have expressed myself already on this issue here and here. Basically, I think that
One of the foundation stones of our culture has been the idea/belief that humans are unique. We hold ourselves to standards we do not apply to animals--a dog may be put down for killing a person, but will not be put on trial. A man may be charged with killing a dog, but it will not be a murder charge. We may protest the construction of a new dam on a river, but will not hold a protest at the site of a beaver dam. If while driving, the only two choices are hitting an animal, and having a head-on with another car, we run over the animal. If we are stranded with another person and a dog, and have only enough food for two persons, we feed the other person and let the dog starve, or eat it. And so on.
Animal-human hybrids raise profoundly disturbing questions. But, science has no mechanism within itself to consider whether or not something that can be done should be done. Science cannot ask or answer "should" questions. We must turn to philosophy and religion.
Michael Barone explains that the old-time nominating conventions of the past existed mainly because other forms of direct communication did not. For example, direct-dial long distance phone calls are an innovation less than 50 years old. Because of today's technology, he argues, we'll never again see a convention with real suspense and multiple ballots. Even this year's Democratic Convention, he predicts, will not revert to the past.
Full article. From Jewish World Review.
But, is there anyone in the Democratic Party who can make Hillary concede to Obama prior to the convention and withdraw from the race? I see her conceding and withdrawing from the race only if she is convinced that Obama will lose to McCain, that McCain because of age will serve only one term, and that she then will be well-placed for 2012.
Full article. From Jewish World Review.
But, is there anyone in the Democratic Party who can make Hillary concede to Obama prior to the convention and withdraw from the race? I see her conceding and withdrawing from the race only if she is convinced that Obama will lose to McCain, that McCain because of age will serve only one term, and that she then will be well-placed for 2012.
