January 24, 2008

"Shame on you," says Bill Clinton, if you're worried the Hillary campaign is exploiting race.



So it's all in your head if you think the Clintons are doing anything to use race to beat Barack Obama.

Here's Dick Morris taking the strong position that they absolutely know what they are doing and mean to do it:
If Hillary loses South Carolina and the defeat serves to demonstrate Obama's ability to attract a bloc vote among black Democrats, the message will go out loud and clear to white voters that this is a racial fight. It's one thing for polls to show, as they now do, that Obama beats Hillary among African-Americans by better than 4-to-1 and Hillary carries whites by almost 2-to-1. But most people don't read the fine print on the polls. But if blacks deliver South Carolina to Obama, everybody will know that they are bloc-voting. That will trigger a massive white backlash against Obama and will drive white voters to Hillary Clinton.

Obama has done everything he possibly could to keep race out of this election. And the Clintons attracted national scorn when they tried to bring it back in by attempting to minimize the role Martin Luther King Jr. played in the civil rights movement. But here they have a way of appearing to seek the black vote, losing it, and getting their white backlash, all without any fingerprints showing. The more President Clinton begs black voters to back his wife, and the more they spurn her, the more the election becomes about race -- and Obama ultimately loses
Here's Mickey Kaus proposing what he thinks is a clever tactic:
He could try to make Hillary the pet candidate of Latinos the way he's being cast as the pet candidate of blacks--but that would require a shift to the right on immigrant legalization that he doesn't seem willing to make.)...

The more obvious move is to find a Sister Souljah--after Saturday--to stiff arm. The most promising candidate is not a person, but an idea: race-based affirmative action. Obama has already made noises about shifting to a class-based, race-blind system of preferences. What if he made that explicit? Wouldn't that shock hostile white voters into taking a second look at his candidacy? He'd renew his image as trans-race leader (and healer). The howls of criticism from the conventional civil-rights establishment--they'd flood the cable shows--would provide him with an army of Souljahs to hold off. If anyone noticed Hillary in the ensuing fuss, it would be to put her on the spot--she'd be the one defending mend-it-don't-end-it civil rights orthodoxy.
Centralize affirmative action as an issue in the campaign? How would that play out? It seems to me that the candidates would like to get race back into the background — but Hillary first must use it to defeat Obama.

IN THE COMMENTS: Our ghostly reader from the distant past, Sir Archy, has favored us with another visit!
To Professor Althouse.

Madam,

As a Ghost of a former Scotch Elector, dead these 250 years and more, I have seen many an Election, and voted in not a Few. My unfortunate Death put an end to my climbing the Polling Booth steps, as the Franchise was not extended in Scotland in my Day to the Dead. That my Ghostly Condition entitles me to especial Consideration in certain American Constituencies is a piece of welcome Intelligence; I shall endeavor to inform your Readers of the Progress of my Efforts to claim my Place, after these many Years, as an American Elector.

But enough of my Fortunes—let us think on those of Mrs. Clinton: That Mrs. Clinton will be elect'd President, can admit of no Doubt. Consider the Clintons' Past-Mast'ry of arousing Passion & exciting Fear. Consider Mrs. Clinton's prospective Opponents: A Gentleman of good Fortune & Family, but insipid and uninspiring Mien; a half-pay Officer gone into Politicks, who, despite his heroick Past, has anger'd Half his Party; and a former Lord Mayor, who would play Dick Whittington, had he either the Sagacity of the Original, or the Cat of the Character. Are any of these Gentlemen a serious Obstacle to the Clinton Ferocity?

Consider her principal Opponent within her own Party: He should be the only Force that could halt Mrs. Clinton's inexorable Advance upon the White House. He is a fine and accomplish'd Gentleman of African descent, yet his Armour provides the Clintons two Chinks into which to insert the Rapier: The First is that he is a fine Gentleman, and not used to such vengeful Blows; the Second is that he is African, which in America opens him to a variety of Trips beyond the Dreams of any Stiletto-wielding Assassin. The Clintons have him down and are now engag'd in trying the Joints of his Breastplate. We only await Blood upon the Ground as Confirmation of his Demise.

That Mrs. Clinton should be elect'd President ought to occasion sombre Reflection among the American Electorate. The Maxims of a Democratick Nation imply the continual Rotation of Power, and that a Man (or now, a Woman) may answer Ambition with Effort, and rise by way of Politicks. That Power be always the Provinance of one Family or the Other, is a Situation fitter to Spain in my Day, where Hapsburgs & Bourbons contended to oppress an Empire, rather than for a manly Nation, founded on the Principles of British Liberty.

Giving careful consideration to the Qualities of the various Candidates for whom I should vote,

I remain, Madam,

Your humble & obt. Servant,

Sir Archy

101 comments:

Adam Smith said...

Best wishes for a quick recovery from your enduring Clinton Derangement Syndrome.

Ann Althouse said...

Best wishes for a quick recovery from your Channeling Clinton Syndrome.

JDAXC said...

Liberals squabbling over race. BEAUTIFUL!

http://thenorthlot.blogspot.com/2008/01/blog-post.html

Middle Class Guy said...

They don't call him Slick Willie for nothing. Someone should tell him that King has been dead for forty years, Andrew Young is an irrelevant buffoon, and Louis (Lewis) is rarely heard from anymore. What next? Will he raise Rosa Parks from the dead?

Of course living in the past is the true form of living history.

Trevor Jackson said...

"the message will go out loud and clear to white voters that this is a racial fight"

It's Dick Morris that's trying to send a loud and clear message of racism. Even if I suspect that black voters choose Obama because of his race, why should that affect whether I choose to support him?

That's ridiculous and quite a racist charge by Morris. First, it assumes that black people aren't concerned with issues, policy, proposed governing style, etc., but only with race. Second, it assumes that whites will somehow be frightened of Obama b/c black people like him. It just doesn't make sense.

peter hoh said...

Shame on Bill Clinton.

JDAXC said...

Second, it assumes that whites will somehow be frightened of Obama b/c black people like him. It just doesn't make sense.

Trevor Jackson, my man! You need to get out more.

Ron said...

Kaus' position seems to be that Obama will get the empathy and support of white voters if he's attacked by, say, Al Sharpton? The mind spins on that one...

Pogo said...

The law of unintended consequences again exacts its penalty.

In an attempt to reduce racial disparity, rather than unifying people, the efforts, rules, lawsuits, and regulations brought by the left have instead balkanized race and gender groups, inserting a wedge driving them further apart.

SGT Ted said...

Anytime BJ Clinton starts pointing his finger and saying "shame on you" and denying things is a huge raging clue that he's been caught.

Dick Morris was an architect of the Clinton attack machine. He knows exactly what he is talking about WRT how the Clintons operate politically. Trying to smear him is rich. He has Hillary! and Bills MO nailed.

Trevor Jackson said...

Well let me revise that then, jdaxc.

Only people who would be disinclined to vote for Obama anyway would be bothered by the fact that black people would vote for him.

Roger said...

Bill Clinton is continuing his descent into the banal.. He should walk away from this campaign and play elder statesman. There are probably plenty of things he could accomplish in the country or the world. My take is that he is a hopeless political junkie and addicted to the rush of campaigning. Too bad: a man with his political skills (a grudging admission on my part) is wasted in this gutter politics thing. It does appear the Clintons have no better angels in their make up.

Of course, I am also relishing the exquisite feeling of schadenfreude in watching the democrats eat each other up over race and gender issues--but thats another story.

Der Hahn said...

Trevor

Review the way Democrats talk about race and Republicans.

The only thing different is this time it's being deployed against fellow Democrats.

Zeb Quinn said...

If it plays out th way Morris says, it's hard to feature black voters eagerly and enthusiasticly going to the polls to vote for Hillie next November. She gains in the young single woman vote, but loses the black demographic? Is that a net gain?

ricpic said...

Whites damn well better be alarmed about what a black administration would mean for them. Even whites stupid enough to vote Democrat probably sense that a black Democrat administration would mount an assault on their wallets and on those jobs still not designated minority only - all in the name of redress for past wrongs - that would make past Democrat acts of appropriation piddling in comparison.

Middle Class Guy said...

Will there be howls of rage from Mizz Hillary and jowl flapping, foot stamping, and finger pointing from Mr. Bill over this?

"...pet candidate..."

Sheepman said...

When the Clintons were fighting the GOP it was difficult for many Dems to see them for who they really were. The tactics they are using now are not part of the "good fight" against an evil right wing conspiracy - it is a heavy handed, scorched earth strategy to gain power for the sake of power against a decent man.

What bothers me is that they both seem to enjoy it. HRC grinned broadly when she said "we're just getting started" during the debates and Bill said something to effect that he enjoyed seeing them fight it out.

Politics may be a blood sport, but do you want to elect someone who enjoys eating the bloody raw meat of their opponents?

Trevor Jackson said...

Der Hahn, are you asking me to reject charges of racism against Republicans?

Look at what ricpic says a few comments up. Unbelievable. And really, really sad.

AJ Lynch said...

If black voters feel dissed by the Clintons, that could lead to unusually low black voter turnout.

I believe that could be a significant negative for Hillary in swing states such as Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin, Virginia, North Carolina, maybe even New York!

Truth is stranger than fiction.

Ruth Anne Adams said...

He reminds me of Atty Nathan Thurm.

dbp said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
dbp said...

I am a Republican, but if a was a Democrat I would be voting for Obama in the primary race.

--I would not care if African Americans were all voting for him just because he belongs to their ethnic group.

--I would vote for him because he is more electable than Clinton:

There are big chunks of the Republican electorate that have issues with each of the candidates, but all are united in dislike for Hillary and from what I can tell, pretty much all like Obama as a person. They might stay home on election day if Obama is nominated, but they will come out, grit their teeth and vote for a Republican they detest if Clinton is on the ballot.

goesh said...

- he is verging on geezerism, he is falling asleep all the time and who cares if it is a medical thing, the telling dribble spots of pee on his trousers will soon appear and the facade, no matter how propped up, is not eternal....

former law student said...

Shame on Bill Clinton.

Everyone who thinks Bill has the capacity to feel shame, raise your hands.

Logically Barack has to exploit gender -- but how? Show the inconsistency between Hillary loyal wife in the face of repeated bimbo eruptions and Hillary would-be world leader?

Pogo said...

are you asking me to reject charges of racism against Republicans

Trevor, I am asking you to consider that the Democrats approach to race has fostered balkanization rather than unity, resulting in ricpic-type beliefs.

And why would he think differently, when black leaders themselves demand reparations for slavery and more not less racial preferences under the guise of affirmative action?

Don't you wonder why, despite millions spent and lawsuits won and regulations enforced, racial tensions seem to have worsened instead of improving?

Try replacing the word "despite":
Because of the millions spent and lawsuits won and regulations enforced, racial tensions have worsened instead of improving.

JDAXC said...

Obama needs to get a big-time, credible buddy to throw a pick for him.
Bill has become Hillary's war-wagon. He can say/insinuate whatever he wants while at the same time insulating Hillary.
Obama is looking at a 2 front war and he needs a buddy. He needs one real bad!

Freder Frederson said...

Don't you wonder why, despite millions spent and lawsuits won and regulations enforced, racial tensions seem to have worsened instead of improving?

Since when? In what period of time are you talking about? In the last forty years, twenty years, ten? What possible basis is there to this statement. Just because you can't get away with calling a 65 year old man "boy" anymore and expect him to avert his eyes and say "yessir"? Just because if you tell someone on the phone that you have an apartment available and when they show up to look at it you suddenly remember that it has already been rented you run the risk of having HUD investigate you for housing discrimination?

Yeah, racial tensions sure seem to have worsened.

Cedarford said...

Ah, it is indeed a wonderful time.

The cancer of identity politics meets Bill Clintons steely determination to skirt the 22nd Amendment and do whatever it takes to deliver his politically unappetising wife on the White House steps - on his back or in a wheelbarrow if that is what it takes - for HIM to be back as Maestro..

The Democrats made an art of pandering to Victim groups and elevating degree of victimhood into a form of merit and entitlement to office or Gov't benefits....and from their dogma of demonizing all opposition as racist, bigoted, misogynist to deny a black, woman, gay,

Of course it wouldn't be the 1st circular firing squad the Dems have had. The wars between liberal blacks and liberal Jews in major US cities was a major subtheme of the 60s and 70s. Blacks wanting power and community control, and well-meaning Jews who did have the power, did provide the money and lawyers for the Civil Rights movement and creating groups like the NAACP - arguing that blacks were not ready to take the school jobs, council seats, judgeship appointments that Jews had "in trust" for the black community.

Those wars exceeded anything going on now between Obama and Clinton. Violent confrontations, open anti-semitism, open questioning of black intelligence. Part of the 60s riots was the subtext of blacks targeting Jewish-owned stores and slums to burn the Jews out and let blacks control their own destiny.

Nothing the "woman victims 1st!" or the "black victims 1st" identity politics partisans will ever approach that level of animosity - but it is pretty bad.

Both are flanked by insanely ambitious, hyperpartisan supporters that fully believe, by the Democratic memes of 40 years in the making that:

A. Women have nurtured their husbands careers and are hugely responible for success. And deserve their due. They have waited too long in support roles and just as the glass ceiling is about to shatter, along comes a an unqualiied interloper with 2 years of experience vs. the 35 of the hard-working, deserving women claiming it is his time, ahead of any woman's...That is so unfair!

B. Blacks are but two votes from finally, truly having arrived. This young man speaks for the aspirations of not just his generation, but 20 generations before him who were denied a voice, denied the Prize, denied respect! Slaves didn't pick cotton for the white man alone. They toiled so the White lady got the big house, the fancy dresses and ball room parties. She had the power, the ear of nearly every CEO, Senator ever elected and all the Presidents - not us. Now when we have our shot, along comes this privileged White woman who can never have enough power or influence saying it isn't our time, but her time for more of what she has had all her life, including the White House....and she only got there through her powerful white husbands clout. And we are supposed to say she comes before us??

*****************
Obama is unlikely to oppose affirmative action, because from his days as a child being appointed to the swankest schools and offered full or partial scholarship rides on being a black with brains - affirmative action has helped him immensely. Even now, it is unthinkable that one of the 5000-8,000 whites and Asians of similar credentials and speech-making skills in minor offices would have been selected to keynote a National Party Convention while a State Senator. Then been given two solid years of adoring full media coverage as "The Black Rock Star of Politics". Or ever been selected by Party bigwigs and major donors to be a serious Presidential candidate with only two years as a Senator with no military, no executive successes to point to.

All that was made possible in the Democrat party by his bloodlines - and their perceived duty to affirmative action and elevating blacks over more qualified Asians and whites.

Obama to say he wants to end AA would be literally spitting at the people that supported his own early rise.

Sheepman said...

Obama needs to get a big-time, credible buddy to throw a pick for him
How about Gore? It can be payback time for Bill deceiving him and undermining his reelection chances by getting involved with and then lying about Lewinsky.

Doug said...

Trevor, I am asking you to consider that the Democrats approach to race has fostered balkanization rather than unity, resulting in ricpic-type beliefs.

Shorter Pogo: We wouldn't have all this racism if the Democrats would just stop representing black people.

Pogo said...

Yeah, racial tensions sure seem to have worsened.

Well then all those race experts must be wrong, the "noose" stories exagerrated, "institutional racism" a joke, the confederate flag fight an illusion, disagreement about affirmative action a mirage, and the enforced diversity training at my work unneeded.

Actaully Freder, I agree that things are quite a bit better.
It's just not [ermitted to be said, at least not by Democrats. "More work to be done" and all that.

EnigmatiCore said...

Is it wrong for me to want to vote Obama just to stop the back and forth of Clinton Derangement Syndrome and Bush Derangement Syndrome and the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy and MoveOn.org?

Roger said...

I regret that the democratic campaign appears to be injecting race (and gender) into the campaign. Re racism: I grew up in the segregated south where my entire family used the N word to refer to black americans. Segregated facilities including water fountains. In my 66 years in this country I do think that such overt racism has largely been overcome. Is there still racism in some segments of society? Without doubt, because, IMO, it is rooted on our innate dislike of people who are different. But we have come a long way in two generations--and I regret that the democrats are playing this card. It does no one any good.

Pogo said...

Doug decoded:
Disagreement with Democratic racial demagoguery is heresy.

Trevor Jackson said...

Sure, Pogo, I'll consider it. Clearly affirmative action hasn't been successful in stemming the tide of emotional racism in this country. I'd say it is/was pretty effective in eliminating institutional racism and in unstacking the deck for minorities. Is its work done? What should replace it if it's, as you say, creating more harm than good by fostering racial resentment and feelings of entitlement?

I don't know, but I'm pretty sure that Obama hasn't demanded reparations. And assuming that a President Obama would kowtow to those folks is as silly as thinking that JFK would have taken orders from the Pope.

JDAXC said...

Sheepman - Although I doubt it will happen, but I was thinking........THE BIG O.

EnigmatiCore said...

Imagine, Cedarford bringing up teh Jews in a thread that has nothing to do with them. Will wonders never cease?

Freder Frederson said...

Jews who did have the power, did provide the money and lawyers for the Civil Rights movement and creating groups like the NAACP

Man Cedarford, the Jews are a crafty and creative lot. They invented communism, socialism, fascism, Naziism (that didn't turn out too well for them though), are responsible for the evil that are limited access highways, and now the NAACP! Is there no end to their perfidy? I bet they are responsible for the fluoridation of water too.

Pogo said...

What should replace it if it's, as you say, creating more harm than good by fostering racial resentment and feelings of entitlement?

Maybe we could live in a nation where we will not be judged by the color of our skin but by the content of our character.

A merit-based and not race-based society can only be accomplished by beginning. If you want equality of opportunity, go by merit. If you want to eliminate race as a factor in our social interactions, you must eliminate race in our social interactions.

Demanding that race remain a factor will always fail to achieve King's dream.

Original Mike said...

Roger said: I regret that the democrats are playing this card. It does no one any good.

It's what the democrats always do. It's just that this time, the targets have changed.

And I agree that it does no one good.

Trevor Jackson said...

"Maybe we could live in a nation where we will not be judged by the color of our skin but by the content of our character."

Maybe we could. So, do you think affirmative action and anti-discrimination laws re: housing/hiring are no longer necessary? Do you think they were ever necessary?

Middle Class Guy said...

The only enemy the Democrats have right now are each other. The President is a non-entity. The Republicans are in disarray until a real front runner arrives. Hillary will destroy anyone who presents an obstacle. She and Obama were the only two viable candidates from the start.

Then there is the historical aspect- the first woman vs. the first Black. Hillary does not deserve the mantel of first woman president. The one who, had she run, would make Hillary look like the tyro piker she really is. The woman who has real life time experience, real documented, verified, evidence of policy implementation and change and the only one who has been vetted by agencies of the government is Nancy Pelosi. She deserves it. Hillary is a negative number compared to her.

If I were a Democrat, I would vote for Obama. Hell, if the Republicans do not get their heads out of the anal sphincters, I still may.

Roger said...

Is affirmative action necessary? not in my opinion and it does more harm than good; and it wouldnt be necessary if we judged people by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. We continue to prove Gunner Myrdal right.

Pogo said...

do you think affirmative action and anti-discrimination laws re: housing/hiring are no longer necessary? Do you think they were ever necessary?

Affirmative action achieved the opposite effect than intended. Race-based hires were seen as "tokens", insufficient on their own merit. It engendered resentment, indignities, and class wars.

Anti-discrimination laws re: housing/hiring?
It depends. Which ones? Eliminating Jim Crow was overdue. it has been shown that some of these laws, like the ADA, have unintentionally fostered worse outcomes because people are afraid to hire or house someone when their race or disability might get them sued.

Special rights create perverse incentives, and achieve worse results.

"If you are a black, vegetarian, Muslim, asylum-seeking, one-legged, lesbian lorry driver, I want the same rights as you."

garage mahal said...

Two Clinton haters takes on how they can stoke racial tensions on a national level for the Democrats. Kaus must be having a slow tabloid week. No Love Children from Edwards, or Secret Clinton Spy Tapes on Princess Diana.

Good stuff here though Ann. Real fresh.

PatCA said...

I wonder what it was that set Dick Morris against his former employers.

Roger said...

Garage: for you to blame Kaus and Althouse for stoking racial tensions in the democratic race requires overlooking everything the candidates and their surrogates have said--are you really that blind to the reality around you? Or is it just impossible for you to get your arms around the idea that the democrats can and will play race and gender cards.

Richard Fagin said...

Hmmmm...Obama hasn't done the "spade" work, said Sen. Clinton. Not the "ground" work, not the "hard preparation", not the "fundamental" work or the "background" work, but the "spade" work. I am not aware of the term "spade work" being used with any regularity these days if at all. When Sen. Clinton dismisses euphemism with the old expression "let's call a spade a spade" I suspect any doubt will be removed about her campaign using race as a weapon.

Randy (Internet Ronin) said...

Actually, in California, Obama leads Clinton by 34 points among blacks. Clinton leads Obama by 42 points among Latinos, 21 points among Asiana and 2 points among white non-Hispanics.

Ruth Anne Adams said...

PatCA: I think Morris was put off by Hillary's anti-semitism directed at him.

Randy (Internet Ronin) said...

Every time someone quotes Dick Morris, I am reminded of Mary McCarthy's comment to Dick Cavett about Lillian Hellman: "every word she writes is a lie, including 'and' and 'the'."

Double that for Morris.

garage mahal said...

Roger
Did you read the links? Who is stoking? They both laid out a pretty clear plan on how to do it, seems to me.

Henry said...

Morris projects. Primary voters in one state are not going to resent the votes of primary voters in another state.

Voters are attracted by identity and personality. Hell, even Spiro Agnew had the Greek American bloc. Having a core support group is commonplace. Successful politicians assemble coalitions around this core, which is the challenge for both Obama and Clinton.

Morris supposes that a black-white split in the Democratic Primaries is self-perpetuating. Somehow accumulating black support for Obama will occasion an existential crisis for his non-black supporters.

That sounds like poppycock to me. If anything the evidence of overwhelming black support will validate the ideals of his white supporters.

If we switch the topic from racism to sexism, consider that Hillary draws well among women. Do men vote for another candidate because more women vote for Hillary. By Morris's logic, they should.

Middle Class Guy said...

PatCA said...
I wonder what it was that set Dick Morris against his former employers.




Morris was caught in some sex scandal involving prostitutes. The media ran with it. The Clintons threw him under the bus. He abused Clinton executive privilege- only Bill could have a sex scandal.

Sir Archy said...

To Professor Althouse.

Madam,

As a Ghost of a former Scotch Elector, dead these 250 years and more, I have seen many an Election, and voted in not a Few.  My unfortunate Death put an end to my climbing the Polling Booth steps, as the Franchise was not extended in Scotland in my Day to the Dead.  That my Ghostly Condition entitles me to especial Consideration in certain American Constituencies is a piece of welcome Intelligence; I shall endeavor to inform your Readers of the Progress of my Efforts to claim my Place, after these many Years, as an American Elector.

But enough of my Fortunes—let us think on those of Mrs. Clinton:  That Mrs. Clinton will be elect'd President, can admit of no Doubt.  Consider the Clintons' Past-Mast'ry of arousing Passion & exciting Fear.  Consider Mrs. Clinton's prospective Opponents:  A Gentleman of good Fortune & Family, but insipid and uninspiring Mien; a half-pay Officer gone into Politicks, who, despite his heroick Past, has anger'd Half his Party; and a former Lord Mayor, who would play Dick Whittington, had he either the Sagacity of the Original, or the Cat of the Character.  Are any of these Gentlemen a serious Obstacle to the Clinton Ferocity?

Consider her principal Opponent within her own Party:  He should be the only Force that could halt Mrs. Clinton's inexorable Advance upon the White House.  He is a fine and accomplish'd Gentleman of African descent, yet his Armour provides the Clintons two Chinks into which to insert the Rapier:  The First is that he is a fine Gentleman, and not used to such vengeful Blows; the Second is that he is African, which in America opens him to a variety of Trips beyond the Dreams of any Stiletto-wielding Assassin.  The Clintons have him down and are now engag'd in trying the Joints of his Breastplate.  We only await Blood upon the Ground as Confirmation of his Demise.

That Mrs. Clinton should be elect'd President ought to occasion sombre Reflection among the American Electorate. The Maxims of a Democratick Nation imply the continual Rotation of Power, and that a Man (or now, a Woman) may answer Ambition with Effort, and rise by way of Politicks.  That Power be always the Provinance of one Family or the Other, is a Situation fitter to Spain in my Day, where Hapsburgs & Bourbons contended to oppress an Empire, rather than for a manly Nation, founded on the Principles of British Liberty.

Giving careful consideration to the Qualities of the various Candidates for whom I should vote,

I remain, Madam,

Your humble & obt. Servant,

Sir Archy

Pogo said...

Damn it Sir Archy, but that is good.

Middle Class Guy said...

Freder Frederson said...
I bet they are responsible for the fluoridation of water too.


Nope, that was those pesky perfidious progressives.

Cedarford said...

Freder Frederson said...
"Jews who did have the power, did provide the money and lawyers for the Civil Rights movement and creating groups like the NAACP."

Man Cedarford, the Jews are a crafty and creative lot. They invented communism, socialism, fascism, Naziism (that didn't turn out too well for them though), are responsible for the evil that are limited access highways, and now the NAACP! Is there no end to their perfidy? I bet they are responsible for the fluoridation of water too.


Dislike the messenger all you want, Freder, After Souhern white Dems vs. Everyone else, blacks vs. Jews was the last major internal Democratic Party Civil War of the 20th century. Jewish communists and "progressives" founded the NAACP in 1909 and ran it for black's best interests until the black self-determination movement of the mid-60s ridded black organizations and local government and businesses of the heavy Jewish control that had settled in over once autonomous black neighborhoods.

No one is saying Jews ever had any involvement in limited access highways. Like your sarcastic flouridation, but unlike the truth about the NAACP and the wresting of control of black neighborhood institutions from the Jews - the story of the NAACP is quite true. As was the subtext of the riots as a way to return black destiny to the control of blacks..

Elliott A said...

It is sad but predictable that Obama's attempt to run as himself would be doomed to failure. As long as there are Al Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons running around, as long as there is a Congressional Black Caucus, as long as the White Male is the last on the preference list, people will ascribe race to everyone's motivations where a person of color is involved. At some point the "racist police" and the preferences must go away and the folks stand on their own. Every other minority in this country went through much to finally be accepted as equals. It is not important that in a perfect world this is not fair and equitable. The new generations of non-black Americans have issues with them because of these things, not because of their race per se as in the past. They are waiting for them to take off the life vest and jump in the water. Laws cannot change hearts, only actions. Many in the democratic establishment do not want to see this happen, since they lose their biggest voting bloc. The Democrats are the ones who maintain them as a "kept" group with money and favors. I feel Obama really wants to bridge the divide between the various groups of Americans both political and racial. Maybe he could help ease the African-Americans out of the lifevest. The Clintons clearly don't care about African Americans except as a big bloc of dependable votes. Going after Obama will not cost them those votes if Hillary wins, since they have been brainwashed into thinking only Democrats have their best interests in mind.

Freder Frederson said...

Jewish communists and "progressives" founded the NAACP in 1909 and ran it for black's best interests until the black self-determination movement of the mid-60s ridded black organizations and local government and businesses of the heavy Jewish control that had settled in over once autonomous black neighborhoods.

Just because Jewish lawyers and radicals (along with many non-Jewish whites) helped blacks form the NAACP does not mean that they ran it for the next fifty odd years secretly manipulating the black front they displayed for the public in some nefarious Zionist plot.

Your reading of history is bizaare--but then we already knew that.

Freder Frederson said...

as long as the White Male is the last on the preference list, people will ascribe race to everyone's motivations where a person of color is involved.

It sure is hard being a white male in this society, isn't it. You are so oppressed and put down.

Revenant said...

Centralize affirmative action as an issue in the campaign? How would that play out?

If Obama came out in favor of replacing the racist affirmative action system with one based on economic status, he'd win a LOT of support from poor whites and Asians without, I think, losing much black support.

Heck, I'd probably vote for him myself.

Elliott A said...

F.F.- I am just reporting what the young white males I know (many since my son is 24) believe to be the case. They knew people in their high schools who were accepted to colleges they had no chance at despite lesser credentials. They know people in their professional schools with the same feeling. They know people in their workplace who are in jobs they shouldn't have. This group of young people (the women generally feel the same) are tomorrow's decision makers by demographic default. They will find it difficult to not question how some of their coworkers or collegues got where they are and doubt if they belong there. My point is that at this point in time, AA is the pet peeve of this group and this preempts our ability to finally morph into a colorblind society. They are taught racial equality but learn that some are still more equal than others.

Pogo said...

some are still more equal than others.

Which is why racial preferences divide rather than unite.

If you're trying to promote equality, why do you think discriminating will achieve it?

Revenant said...

If you let the average orange guy into school with a C+ average, but demand a B average from blue guys, you don't just set a up a situation where the average blue guy thinks, upon meeting an orange guy, "odds are that this guy's not as smart as me" -- you set up a situation where the blue guy is correct to think that. The average orange student at that school IS dumber than the average blue student. This will be true even if orange people and blue people have the same basic intelligence, just because your standards for oranges are lower.

Middle Class Guy said...

"...but learn that some are still more equal than others."



Some pigs are more equal than other pigs. It is the progressive way!

John Stodder said...

Six months ago, I was warming up to Hillary. I tended to agree that Obama was light in experience and he seemed a bit too far to the left for me. I recognized his "first-class temperament," but I thought that Hillary was a better option for the moment we occupy. On the world stage, it is important for a president to be a little bit of a liar, as long as they are a good one.

Now, I'm in a different place. I would vote for any of the viable Republicans over Hillary. Any. Including two candidates I basically loathe, Romney and Huckabee.

So I won't feel too badly about it, I'm praying McCain gets the nod. But that's only after I pray that Democrats come to their senses and nominate Obama.

It's not about ideology anymore. It's about character. Bill's reemergence as chief spokesperson and co-candidate has stripped away whatever legitimacy Hillary's candidacy once had. Age and (I suppose) debauchery has removed whatever charm he used to have. He is almost sociopathic in his dishonesty, narcissism and capacity for thuggishness. He is Karl Rove squared, plus self-pity. If Hillary wants my vote, she needs to take out a gun and shoot her husband in the head -- maybe not literally. She needs to reject his legacy and run truly on her own. Her Sister Souljah moment would be to declare publicly that "Bill no longer speaks for me and I wish he'd shut up and go play with his gal pals."

Truly, whenever I see him wagging his finger in some reporter's face, denying plain facts, I feel like there's nothing I wouldn't do to end this guy's public career. Right now, the only way to do it is to vote against his wife at every opportunity.

Am I so different from everyone else?

Original Mike said...

John Stodder: You've decribed my feelings to a T. Six months ago, I'd have voted Hillary over Obama, and Hillary over a few Repubs (especially over Huckabee). Even though I'm terrified of her statist solutions, I felt she had the toughness needed in these dangerous times.

Right now I'd vote for Bozo the Clown over Hillary.

Pogo said...

Bill Clinton (red-faced, shaking finger): I did not play the race card with that candidate!

I wonder what the blue dress moment will be this time out?

Will Carville say, "Drag an open house seat through Illinois, you never know what you'll find."?

Middle Class Guy said...

Stoddard...
It's not about ideology anymore. It's about character.

Which is why so many voeters are turning independent. They are tired of the candidates spouting the party ideology and not any of their own ideas.

As to Hillary, she is not running to be an agent of change or an effective president. She is running for two reasons- pure power and the use of that power to validate and vindicate the Clintons legacy.

garage mahal said...

So much hate and anger. Pity.

Theo Boehm said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
PatCA said...

Is anyone else noticing that the commenters here are establishing new conventions for commenting?

We have poetry by ricpic (taking Sippican Cottage's place), and Sir Archy is a welcome voice from the past.

Cool.

Jeremy said...

"So much hate and anger. Pity."

Cue the "Pot meets Kettle. Where have you been the last 7 years?"

To be followed swiftly by "Hello? You started it with Whitewater, Ken Starr, Vince Foster, et al."

Please. Does anybody honestly believe that what the country needs most right now is another Clinton or another Bush? Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it or something. Or as someone else said "Like a dog that returns to its vomit is a fool who repeats his folly."

garage mahal said...

Cue the "Pot meets Kettle. Where have you been the last 7 years?"

Valid. At least it was over fairly important issues i.e Iraq, Torture, Eavesdropping etc. This blog is a bright light to a weird brand of people who seem to think they are liberal, or would like to think they are, but their biggest kick is trashing other liberals. If you hate Hillary with the venom of some of the residents here, it's about them, not Hillary.

Paul Snively said...

To one of Sir Archy's points, the mere fact alone that, were Hillary Clinton to be elected, the United States Presidency will have been in the hands of either a Bush or a Clinton for 20 years is simply too disturbing to accept.

Paul said...

The Clintons power mad narcissistic sociopaths??!! Say it isn't so!

I think it's great that old Wild Bill is out and about demonstrating to all of the less perceptive individuals out there who should have grasped the fact years ago that he is one mean hillbilly.

My favorite outburst of purple rage was his tantrum on Fox news when he lit into Chris Wallace for the "little smirk" on his face. It's not Wallace's fault he looks like one of the Keebler Elvs with a permanent bemused expression. Old Bill with his pant leg riding way up above the top of his sock, leaning over the table with the finger wagging and lip aquiver, eyes bulging...how presdidential.

Of course the liberals loved it. Which says a lot about them now doesn't it?

And did somebody mention John McCain and character in the same sentence? I guess if being a hotheaded egomaniacal media whore is your benchmark for character McCain's your man.

Revenant said...

And did somebody mention John McCain and character in the same sentence?

I think Charles Keating might have, once...

Blake said...

While I'm a Fred guy (yeah, I know, I don't care, I'm still a Fred guy), I'm with Stodder.

I resented HRC's "mantle of inevitability" (and I didn't believe then she was inevitable and I don't believe now) I thought she'd be better than Obama, though.

No more.

John Stodder said...

You can criticize John McCain's legislative record and political statements all you want, but it is almost unfair to either of the Clintons to discuss McCain's character in their presence. If they had any shame, they would bow their heads at that point and give up the game. McCain has a titanic character next to them, Keating including.

Look, I was ready to accept BC as an elder statesman. Some of his presidency was worthwhile. There wasn't anything wrong about Clinton that couldn't be fixed by what was right about Clinton. In the end, his presidency was not a failure, but it was a letdown almost entirely due to his weak character overwhelming his supreme intelligence.

The version of BC we see running around on the campaign trail is the worst of him, with nothing of value to offset it. He looks, sounds and behaves horribly. He was inspiring once. Who could be inspired by that finger-wagging mean old creep. He now seems to me like the last vestiges of the old Democratic version of race politics as practiced by his mentor William Fulbright and others of his generation like Richard Russell. Politely racist Democrats who used the "seg" issue to stir up votes in their column. Maybe when he dies, it'll finally die with him.

peter hoh said...

Liberals must remember that Hillary's biggest two accomplishments were setting back the cause of health care reform and making Newt Gingrich the Speaker of the House.

I agree with most of what John Stodder wrote in his 3:59, except that six months ago I was not a Hillary fan.

former law student said...

Always remember: Bill can be swayed by the flash of a thong. After the meejah is done asking what Hill's 35 years of experience has amounted to, perhaps they can ask her if Bill will be entitled to any interns to fill his needs as First Gentleman.

Paul said...

" McCain has a titanic character next to them, Keating including."

That's true. The Clintons set the bar pretty low however. But is also true that McCain is an egomaniac and a media whore. Don't forget he took Kerry's side against the Swiftboat Vets. And he's bought into the great global warming hoax.

With Fred out of the race I'm not voting for anyone. I'm voting against whatever socialist the Dems nominate.

John Stodder said...

Don't forget he took Kerry's side against the Swiftboat Vets. And he's bought into the great global warming hoax.

Taking Kerry's side in that instance was a sheer act of loyalty to anyone who served their country. I wouldn't have done it, would have no need to do it, and nobody would care if I had, but McCain sees himself as speaking for all vets. I doubt he scrutinized what the Swifties had to say -- much of which was valid. He just saw a brother in arms being savaged by the political hit squad.

As for the "global warming hoax?" At this writing, it is by no means a hoax. It might be overblown. Al Gore might be pushing down the wrong track. In time it might be seen as a calculation error, or a failure to accurately assess a very dynamic, multivariable system. But any candidate who expects to win votes from other than hardcore Republicans by calling GW a "hoax" will be very disappointed. There are way too many respected scientists endorsing the theory to allow anyone serious to dismiss it as a "hoax."

Perhaps that's why all the remaining viable GOP candidates take basically the same position on GW as McCain. It's curious that only McCain gets called on it.

You Republicans are too easily led around by the nose by your radio heroes. Rush Limbaugh and Hugh Hewitt simply lie about McCain's record, and you guys just nod your heads. Only McCain gets savaged when he varies from the presumed Reagan principles (which Reagan himself violated many times.)

Like, for instance: Where's the conservative outrage over Mitt's promise to use the power of the federal government to "save" the auto industry through discredited industrial policy strategies. Where's the conservative outrage over Rudy's promise to use federal money to rebuild every Florida house in a hurricane zone that gets knocked down by a hurricane? You're saying McCain's the phony conservative? He's the only non-whore in the race, and he's paid the price. A price Mitt and Rudy have been too cowardly to pay.

The left's got Glenn Greenwald and Kos, the right's got Hewitt and Limbaugh. Same circus, different clowns.

Paul said...

"He just saw a brother in arms being savaged by the political hit squad."

Political hit squad? Brother in arms? Boy have you been duped. Kerry slandered American soldiers while they were fighting and dying claiming they were commiting war crimes on a daily basis. It was the swifties themselves that rose up en mass to discredit the treasonous fraud including his ENTIRE chain of command. Political hit squad my ass. How’s that hook in your lip feel? Did you read the book "Unfit For Command"? Even if half of it was untrue, and none of it has been disproved, it is still an absolutely devastating account. But most devastating were Kerry's own words and actions captured on film. And to this day the swine has refused to release his records.

And just because you can't figure out the AGW is a hoax doesn't mean it isn't one, your appeal to authority notwithstanding. The link between CO2 and temperature increase seemed likely until upon closer scrutiny it became clear that CO2 was a lagging indicator. And the other dissonant factors from the phony hockey stick graph to the inconvenient fact that temperatures have been flat for almost a decade now are too numerous too begin to list now. Anyone with even a smattering of historical perspective knows that scientific consensus has been 180 degrees wrong many times in the past even without the peer and fiscal pressures leveraged against global warming "deniers" in today’s politicized academic environment. And isn't just a little bit too convenient a truth that the AGW agenda melds so nicely with the aims of the anti-American anti-capitalist Gramscian left who have seized on this issue like a veritable life preserver ever since the dissolution of the Soviet bloc?

You accuse me of blindly following Rush and Hugh Hewitt which is a neat trick since I don't listen to talk radio, meanwhile you swallow the left's blatant bullshit like the tool you are.

Nobody tells me what to think and I fit no convenient demographic profile, so your simple minded assumptions say more about your reactionary and prejudiced narrow mindedness than anything else. In fact my occupation, peers, and geographic location is so reliably left wing that I am totally in the closet, because you tolerant and open minded liberals would see to it I never worked at all if they knew my politics.

Gary Rosen said...

"Your reading of history is bizaare--but then we already knew that."

Well, C-fudd is the guy who thinks military "heart and courage" is exemplified by undertaking operations using civilians as human shields.

Paul said...

Well right on cue we have The New York Times endorsing McCain.


Just perfect.

AllenS said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
AllenS said...

Mr. Stodder--

You seem to be a smart guy, unfortunately you are a slow learner. You've proven that with your final assessment of Hillary. As a Viet Nam vet, I could try to get you hip to what irks a lot of us about Kerry, and why most of us were thankful for the Swift Boat Vets for Truth, but I'll just wait to you to smarten up. I know you can do it.

peter hoh said...

Weren't some of the swift boat vets for truth the same guys who were smearing McCain in 2000?

AJ Lynch said...

Paul"

Let me try to defend John Stodder. He is no liberal and he is one of the best thinkers among this blog's commenters. Re McCain, I think Stodder was trying to say McCain was simply taking the high road during the Swift Boat / Kerry back and forth. I can say that as one who gave money to the Swift Boat group (my first ever political contribution).

I would add McCain would admit he did some things during the war that he is not proud of. That is likely the main reason he gave any voice to defending Kerry.

Fen said...

Weren't some of the swift boat vets for truth the same guys who were smearing McCain in 2000?

Nope. That was a Bush campaign operation. Most of the Swifties were Edward's supporters.

Paul said...

AJ Lynch,

That's fine, but the best thinker in the world's thoughts are junk when they're based on false assumptions.

His attack on me as merely some dittohead without a brain of my own displayed the typical liberal kneejerk reaction to a different viewpoint. His criticism couldn't have been wider of the mark.

I'll bet he actually believes Kerry "served his country" and pulled the lever for him in '04. You cannot serve your country and serve the enemy too.

Until recovering Democrats like him fill the pivotal gap in their knowledge with regards to Antonio Gramsci, the Frankfort School, and the long march through the institutions they are still functionally clueless about what is happening politically and culturally in this country.

John Stodder said...

AJ is pretty much correct in what I meant. I wasn't trying to defend Kerry from the swiftboat allegations, or from the notion that his comments in '71 were valid. Kerry is a special species of grotesque hypocrite, slandering his fellow soldiers and then trying to pretend he was a great war hero. He tried to have it both ways in the most bizarre fashion I've ever seen in politics.

What I meant was what you said. McCain was just trying to take the high road in defense of a fellow vet, a fellow senator and a friend. In past times, Republicans and Democrats enjoyed loyal friendships, and friendship should mean something. It's to McCain's credit that he said something stupid in defense of his friend.

As for GW...Good luck with that. Corporate America is now pushing the AGW theory and telling their consumers they have to change. Pastors have embraced the issue, including some conservative churches. The way I see things, your insisting it is a "hoax" seems about a meritorious as someone like Gore insisting AGW is proven and there is no more room for debate. Both positions are matters of faith, not science. I'll wait for the science. But obviously the public is concerned about it, and all the candidates in the race are reflecting that in their campaign positions, including Mitt and Huck.

I never called anyone stupid. What I said was Rush and Hugh are leading many conservatives around by the nose on the issue of McCain's unfitness to be called a conservative. They are letting the other GOP candidates get away with taking the exact same or even more liberal positions, but only calling out McCain on his heresies.

I go back to how Mitt won Michigan. He won by making a sweeping promise of government intrusion in the marketplace, a promise that, if he carries it out, will be incredibly expensive and ineffective. It's Carteresque. But to Hewitt, Mitt's radical liberal position on the auto industry makes him even spiffier (Hewitt seems to awaken each day determined to find a new reason to love Romney), and Rush hasn't paid any attention to it. He's been too busy propagandizing against McCain. Propaganda doesn't only work on dumb people.

Paul said...

Of course corporate America is embracing AGW. Anyone who can stick their hands in the enormous stream of capital generated from energy production and consumption will do so. Corporations and big government naturally tend to collude as they help entrench each other more intractably in power. Look at Europe.

You needn't wait for the science, it's there already if you care to look for it. What you'll need to wait for is a consensus.

As for taking the "high road" by standing up for a traitor against the honorable soldiers he betrayed, that is exactly what I mean about McCain's being a media whore. He ingratiated himself with liberals and the liberal media at the expense of his fellow soldiers and his own integrity. As for Romney's shortcomings and some pundit's hypocrisy, what does that have to do with anything I said? I mentioned that the only candidate I could vote for was Fred, and that now my vote will simply be against whatever democrat is nominated.

Are there partisan hacks that are misleading and disingenuous on both side? Of course. Does Rush = Kos? Not even close

And you should take to heart what I said about the Gramscians, because that is the key to unlocking the very root of the modern left's trajectory, and it is Anti-American to the core. The cultural revolution in the 60's was not a spontaneous event.

Look you either embrace the concepts of the framers or you don't. The Federal government's powers are carefully enumerated in the constitution, and any powers not specifically designated to fall within it's purview were to go to the states and the individual. Period. We are far away from that at this point entirely due to the leftist influences from Rousseau to Rorty, and we are hanging by a thread which the Democrats and some Republicans are feverishly anxious to cut, at which point the government's powers will accumulate unchecked and we will inexorably devolve into tyranny.

Have you read Thomas Sowell’s “Conflict of Visions, the Origins of Political Struggle”? If not I guarantee it will be an immensely clarifying experience. It is not a polemic, by the way.

John Stodder said...

Not to belabor this, but my point in re: McCain and Kerry has been missed. Probably my fault.

When McCain stood up for Kerry's military record in the fact of politically-inspired criticism, the point wasn't to help Kerry. It was to say to all the other veterans out there, "I've got your back."

Maybe it was ill-advised, but I don't think it was the act of a media whore. It was the act of a man who has affection and respect for all veterans, saying that certain kinds of criticism of vets should be beyond the pale. It's a reductionist view: Did Kerry serve? Yes. Was he in a dangerous area? Some of the time. Did he follow orders? Yes. Was he discharged honorably? Yes. Case closed.

I don't think McCain gave Kerry a pass on his post-discharge speech about "Genghis Kahn," which wasn't the initial focus of the Swiftboat vets anyhow. Once the vets pivoted to Kerry's post-war activism, that's when they gained credibility in my eyes. Their initial attacks were on things like whether his injuries were legitimate or his medals truly earned. There wasn't much substance to those charges.

Paul said...

And not to further belabor this, but until you read "Unfit for Command" you aren't able to state what the swifties position actually was. You are recycling a distorted version of their story. The crux of their complaint was always his treasonous activities after he returned to the States. And you are wrong as well as to the substance of their charges regarding his medals. Did you know Kerry served the shortest stint in Viet Nam of any unwounded vet? Did you know that he received more medals in less time than any other vet since Audie Murphy (if I'm remembering correctly)? Those facts alone, while suspicious, are not as incriminating as the testimony of eye witnesses, but you don't know this because your source is the MSM who were desperate to prop of Kerry at all costs in order to defeat the hated Bush.

Like you said, propaganda doesn't only work on dumb people.

John Stodder said...

On that we agree.

Fen said...

Did you know Kerry served the shortest stint in Viet Nam of any unwounded vet?

"Three Purple Hearts in 4 months without missing a day of work? He's either John Rambo or a Fraud."

John Stodder said...

How did Douglas Brinkley, who spent a few years as a respected historian, get mixed up with writing a weighty tome about Kerry's "Tour of Duty?" Jeez, what an insult to everyone else who served.

Look, I know I'm guilty of a lack of due diligence on JK. I didn't want to know too much about him. I've loathed him for his entire political career. But I couldn't vote for Bush. I couldn't give him a pass for Rumsfeld's crippling mismanagement of the war, in which Bush was complicit. Plus I didn't like all the God stuff, but I would've overlooked that if Bush had shown any abilities as C-in-C. I gave Bush my vote in '00. By '04 I was feeling a bit duped.

Looking back, don't forget, Kerry didn't promise a rapid pullout like the current Democratic candidates have. He avoided taking specific positions, but he acknowledged there was no way to just cut and run. Some fresh eyes on the problem in 2005 might've brought about the surge a year sooner.

rhhardin said...

Imus said that Bill had gotten a new battery for his nose.