B After The Fact

Tuesday, May 27, 2008

Why Rush Loves Hillary

So I was wrong about a lot of things about the Clintons in this campaign.

However, the thing that I was most wrong about is the notion that even if Hillary threw the "kitchen sink" at Obama, it wouldn't matter in the general election. Hillary, I said, was not going to say anything about Obama in May that McCain wasn't going to say, only worse, in October.



On Martin Luther King Day, Hillary said that although a great civil rights leader like Dr. King could bring pressure to bear, in the end it takes a President, an LBJ, to make the law to make a difference. At the time I thought nothing of it. "Some people" said that the image that Hillary meant to evoke was that a black person could never, should never, accomplish anything without a white person playing the most dominant role. I'm becoming a "some person".

Then Bill compared Obama's primary victory to Jesse Jackson's. He was trying to remind Jews like me that one "Hymietowner" is much like the next. There is only one class of you know what.

Obama claimed that certain people were "bitter." Hillary accused Obama of being "elitist." Of course, the word "elitist" is in and of itself an elitist word. Who calls high achieving black people "elitists?"

What image were the Clintons attempting to evoke?

As far as I'm concerned, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves - Clarence Thomas

Next was, what was for me, the last straw.

The express statement that the hard working people were white people, and that Hillary was the representative of those white people. And the implication was that the non-white people (the Jews?), even the Senator Obamas of the world, were shiftless and lazy.

Hillary stated loudly what everyone already knew quietly -- that there were people out there who would even vote for Hillary Clinton -- with all the baggage she comes with -- if the alternative was a black person.

Just because I get to shoot off my mouth and say that Obama has absolutely no chance to become President, doesn't mean that Hillary, who is obligated to set a tone - to lead a nation -- gets to do the same thing.

Hillary complains about sexism, but it seems here that she made a lot of people pull the lever for a woman candidate for the first time.

Hillary has run a primary campaign, in the so-called "liberal" party, that David Duke and George Wallace wouldn't have the gall to run. A campaign that Newt Gingrich has expressly warned would be a loser. A campaign that McCain would have had to disavow if his "swift boaters" ran it in the fall. Now, not so much.

Hillary has thrown the kitchen sink at Obama, and then some.

The Clintons are trying to set back the conversation on civil rights progress 50 years. To those good old days when, as Archie Bunker sang it "You Knew Who You Were Then". And the bloodhounds reminded you when you forgot.

"Nonsense," the Clintons would say, "We're just appealing to the kinds of voters Bill grew up with in Arkansas."


And then, last Friday, buried in the comments about RFK, Hillary threatened to go to "civil war" if the votes in Florida and Michigan were not counted in her favor.

What does that mean? Why did we have a civil war in the first place? Because some people thought that black people should improve their condition in the United States. And some people, using the same language of disenfranchisement that Hillary Clinton used last Friday, and Bill used on Monday, thought otherwise.


So it is in this context that the comments about RFK's assassination in 1968 have to be considered.

What kind of reference is RFK? That the primary isn't over until the most popular candidate is shot to death? That the nominating process isn't over until we have ourselves a riot? That the purpose of the thing is to fight so hard that the Democrats lose the election?

To find a crazy person in the audience? A true Hillary groupie to do her bidding?

And after all of that, Hillary still expects to be nominated Vice-President. Which means that she wants to have all the time she needs to wait for Obama to die. Which is why Clinton supporters keep reminding you that they are proposing nothing new -- "Just like Johnson did for JFK."


Hillary has been my Senator for almost 8 years, and I am supporting her candidacy.

She is one of the most careful people I have ever seen in the public sphere.

It is unbelievable to me, that after being so careful for so many decades, that she would suddenly be "misspeaking" so often now.


And being a lawyer, I also know how hard it is to pin down somebody else's evocative comments.

She never said anything overtly racist, but she definitely understands, or the people around her understand, the blood-laden symbolism she's playing with.


She also understands, as do I, how hard it is to "call" someone on the sort of behavior I'm accusing the Clintons of.

"Just because you carry some disgusting old attitudes, doesn't mean that I do."

So everyone feels compelled to pull their punches, lest they are accused of being racists.

Except the Clintons. They say and do whatever they want to, and call that gross level of self-absorbed, hard-headed self-interest "never-give-up" and leadership"

We have a President like that now. How's that working out?


And, sooner or later, the Republicans will haul out the commmercials that worked so well against Harold Ford, and worked so well for Jesse Helms.

And they will be worse than ever.

And when we come to complain, we'll just be reminded --

Hillary did far worse, and we didn't say anything.


I spent the last 15 years wondering what Rush Limbaugh's problem with Hillary is.

Now I understand.

Rush doesn't have a problem with Hillary. Except that she's just like him, in her heart she agrees with him on the most important issues of the day, and she refuses to admit it.

No wonder he has been urging his Dittoheads to vote for her.

Friday, May 23, 2008

Postcards From The Hanging

"Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?"

Henry II, referring to the soon to be killed Sir Thomas Beckett

“We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California.”

Hillary Clinton, looking for Sirhan Sirhan

I predicted that Hillary would move along this path, and I will say it again --

If an "unlucky accident" should befall Obama at this point, the Democrats should give their nomination to someone like John Edwards. Or Harold Ford. Or Janet Napolitano, if they must. Or to you, gentle snowflake

But I do believe that Hillary has basically disqualified herself.

Monday, May 12, 2008

Three Problems About Hillary


Hillary keeps complaining that she needs to have the chance to get into every primary in order to have a chance to win the popular vote.

But the popular vote has little to do with the rules that were set up for the Democratic primaries -- rules that were made up by the Clintons and their supporters to "insure" her nomination.

These rules allowed the small states to save a buck or two and have a caucus. So in a state like Colorado 12 people voted, and in a state like Nevada 8 people voted. Obama won those states.

The large states all had primaries, and Hillary won the popular vote in almost all of them -- in 2 of the states -- Michigan and Florida --- she ran unopposed.

Under the circumstances, Hillary should be WAY ahead in the popular vote, and should have been at all times since Super Tuesday. Even without Michigan and Florida counted in.

Why couldn't she close the deal?

I don't think the Obama people are making this argument very well.


I voted for Hillary in the New York primary. I will vote for the Democratic candidate in November no matter who it is, but

If Obama chooses Hillary to be his running mate, it would prove that he lacks the competence to be President.

I have read so many articles on this that you would think I was getting paid to read them, but I haven't seen one single article make this simple point --

Dick Cheney consolidated power in the Vice Presidency in a way no one thought possible (or desirable).

Hillary will not relinquish one drop of that power.

Say what you want about Dick Cheney -- and I've said plenty -- but Dick Cheney took all the power he accumulated and used it to serve the President in the way that Cheney thought best.

Hillary Clinton will take all the power that Dick Cheney accumulated and will use it to serve herself.

You can't run a country with someone like that running around as a wild card.


So Hillary has the hard working voters -- the white voters. Leaving all of the non-white voters to be shiftless and lazy.

Back in the old days, the days that John McCain and Hillary Clinton seem so intent on re-creating, a Jew didn't know where a cracker-head politician like Hillary Clinton stood on whether or not Jews were whites or not.

But no matter.

The pundits keep saying that Hillary made her brazen statement now because she had nothing to lose -- all of the remaining states -- West Virginia, Kentucky, Puerto Rico -- are overwhelmingly white. (Huh?)

However, no one is saying what's going to happen when Hillary has to come back to New York and try to explain -- to Governor Patterson and Congressman Rangel and Reverend Floyd Flake and Secretary of State Sinbad -- and all the people who support them -- and all the people -- both hard working and shiftless and lazy -- who are trying to find a way to continue to support her -- how it was that she "misspoke" yet again.


Hey, moron, being a "family values" guy doesn't mean that the person with the most families has the most values.

Guy Molinari -- get your foot of your mouth and use it to kick your boy out of Washington.

It doesn't matter who Governor Patterson picks to replace Fossella for the next 6 months. Patterson could pick Jesus. But if He runs as a Democrat in Staten Island, He'll lose the House seat in November.

So what are the Republicans in Staten Island worried about?

What else are they hiding?

Tuesday, May 06, 2008

Looking Back On Some of the Things I Said


I stumbled across this column by Daniel Henniger at the Wall Street Journal, who may be a world-famous somebody, but is new to me.

He makes a great point about Obama that I have not seen elsewhere.

When he was trying to defend himself against Reverend Wright, where were all his friends? After listing all the Oprahs, and Kennedys, and what-nots who endorsed Obama months ago, Mr. Henniger goes on to say

"Blogs and Web sites are overflowing with how this meltdown is largely of Barack Obama's own making. What difference does that make? He is not running for class president; he's running for the presidency of the United States. Even at the crudest level of political calculation and cowardice, there's a point in a presidential race when a candidate's supporters are all in. We passed that point weeks ago. It's him or her. ...

"As entities, the parties continue to recede. The Democratic superdelegates, created to represent the party's interests, look like deer frozen in the headlights of the two candidates' roaring tractor trailers.

"As for the supersized candidates, what strikes one most about them is their "aloneness." They look so solitary. Indeed, it is possible that the old and honorable notion of "standing with" a candidate like Obama simply didn't occur to his famous supporters this week. Everyone has become used to watching celebrity stars and athletes take it in the neck on their own. Even someone running for the nation's presidency looks like just another personal crack-up."


My March 24 post is linked here.

I said

"Over the next 6 weeks [the Clintons] will lie about anything and everything. They will continually misstate their own positions and rewrite history. There is nothing that they will not resort to.

"And they will make sure that you know it.

"Despite all that, Hillary will win every remaining primary, except perhaps North Carolina, where she will finish within the margin of error.

"This will prove that the worst run, most brazen campaign by a white person can beat the best-run campaign by a black person.

"Because the liberal party in America is not ready for a black President.

When I wrote that, I had forgotten that Oregon had a primary later this month, but otherwise I stand behind what I wrote.

In my March 3 post , I demonstrated how Hillary won in all the large states, (except Illinois) including Florida and Michigan, which, it is universally acknowledged, did not really have fair elections.

I take an aside to tell you that whenever someone in my Weight Watchers meeting complains that something is not fair, my Weight Watchers leader says "No one gets to use the word fair if they're over 8 years old."

Yesterday, we read that Hillary intends to go "nuclear" -- and to base all of her claims in front of the Democratic National Committee, and to the convention, and one assumes, eventually to the courts, on the assumption that her election in Michigan and Florida was indeed fair and proper.

So, as in all corrupt matters, the nomination will come down to what happens in Florida.

One post where I was wrong or at least where the fact have not beared me out yet is my April 22 post, where I said that despite what the Clintons said, the super-delegates did not have to choose the candidate with the best chance to beat McCain, they had to choose the candidate who was best for the party (whatever that means).

Howard Dean has stated pretty clearly that the only standard he is interested in is electability.

That is the best and clearest indication I have heard that Hillary may yet take this nomination.


I have said all along that Obama has no chance of becoming President (Absolute zero), and Hillary had a snowball's chance, since voters would turn to Hillary (but they would not turn to Obama) if McCain made enough mistakes.

All these trial balloons regarding Governor Jindal of Louisiana becoming the Republican Vice Presidential candidate would be a mistake of that nature.

Labels: , ,

Thursday, May 01, 2008

Reflections on Being Called a Swine

Towards the end of the comment section of Tuesday's edition of A Red Mind In A Blue State , I am called a swine, and told to look at a book designed to de-swine me Benjamin Morris, The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States.

I don't feel it appropriate to write a 500-word response in a comments section, so I only wrote a little there. My full comments are:

On The Religious Leanings of the Founding Fathers

Nice of you to direct me to a book written during the Civil War, because it allows me to share with you my basic bedtime story --

The single fact of American history is that the Union won the Civil War in 1865 -- slavery was abolished (13th Amendment) -- equal protection (14th Amendment) and voting rights (15th Amendment) were added to our Constitution.

And those people who lost the war, and who were forced to eat non-sweetened Jim Crow, forced to come back into the Union with the new amendments, they have been trying to reverse that result ever since.

They try to minimize the effect of those amendments. They try to say that the Amendments did not mean freedom, did not mean equality (and diminish States Rights), and did not give anyone the full right to vote.

(And nowadays, for sure, things are looking up for people who think like that. That voting rights decision from Indiana, just this week -- Good job)

So on one level, it has been an outrageous rewrite of American History, for the whole time from 1861 onwards, to even care too much about what the Founding Fathers wanted.

Because everything they wanted was mixed in with the compromises that they had to make on slavery.

Because everything they wanted was washed away, as Lincoln said in his Second Inaugural, in the 250 years of blood from the lash, and the 250 years worth of blood drawn from the sword.


And out of all that blood, came the only good news out of the whole 4 year ordeal

Lincoln's New Birth of Freedom.

Which meant that the old constitution was void. It still had some purpose - but mostly as background for the new Constitution, the one with the new amendments attached to the end.

And then non-believers killed Lincoln on Good Friday.


When people say that the country has been in decline since the 60s, and everything that happened since then is a mistake, or that such and such a thing proves that the 60s spirit is still alive, or that such and such a thing proves that the 60s are over, and good riddance, I always have to ask

Which 60s are you talking about?

At What Point Did America Go To Hell In A Handbasket?

Slavery was abolished in the 60s, and the 14th Amendment gave all citizens equal rights. Among other things, a labor movement, a woman’s suffrage movement, and a civil rights movement, and an attempt to inch the concept of equal rights closer to reality.

At which of those points can the country be said to go downhill?

Was it when slavery was abolished?

When we decided we had killed enough Indians?

When we released the Japanese from the concentration camps?

When we decided that maybe 15-year old girls were too young to be mothers? That maybe they ought to have a few years to get an education and figure out one or two ways to make their own money?

When the lynchings went underground, and the wife and kiddies were no longer invited to spend Sunday afternoons cheering along?

Some people say it was the invention of ragtime.

Others say it was the invention of jazz.

And all of these low points that caused -- as you put it --the country's long decline towards equality -- where the riffraff think they're good as you and me -- all these things occurred before the invention of television.

Labels: , , , ,