Looking Back On Some of the Things I Said

WHERE WERE ALL HIS FRIENDS?

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."

LOOKING BACK ON SOME OF THE THINGS I SAID

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.