Body Snatchers
More selectivity:
'A month ago, he [John Lewis] even had this to say about Barack Obama:
"He is no Martin Luther King Jr. I knew Martin Luther King. I knew Bobby Kennedy. I knew President Kennedy. You need more than speech-making. You need someone who is prepared to provide bold leadership."
This is what he's saying now:
"In recent days, there is a sense of movement and a sense of spirit. Something is happening in America, and people are prepared and ready to make that great leap... I've been very impressed with the campaign of Senator Obama. He's getting better and better every single day."'
That's straight out of the Body Snatchers. It reminds me of the scene in Godfather II where the Senator insults Michael Corleone's Italian heritage, then Michael puts a horse's head in his bed, and the next thing you know the guy is praising Enrico Fermi to the high heavens on the Senate floor.
Sullivan speaks about John Lewis but leaves out threats against black superdelegates -- as if McCain Democrats wouldn't see through a coerced conversion/flip-flop. Then goes on: "And what both Clinton and Obama have to avoid is a polarizing racial divide."
Jesse Jackson Jr. wields the black voting bloc like Al Capone's bat against superdelegates, and Sullivan thinks this will be lost on Latinos, Asians and the white middle/working class? As if McCain would let them forget? This is the kind of selective perception that predicted the End of AIDS 15 million AIDS deaths ago.
Understand that the Lewis superdelegate situation is a lose-lose for Clinton, Obama, Lewis and the DNC -- cooked up by the Icon of Lose-Lose, Donna Brazile -- Democratic architect of Bush's 2000 win.
With peace, prosperity and a popular outgoing Democratic President, Brazile ran a Nobel Laureate (Gore) against a chimpanzee and lost. Now the No-Win Diva has turned our 2008 dream ticket into a fiasco:
Who dreamed up this superdelegate mess? If they're supposed to vote with their districts, why didn't the DNC just make them pledged delegates? Using pretzel logic that flies over my head, Nancy Pelosi says it had something to do with first row seats on the convention floor. Is she trying to turn me into a Republican?
What non-committal wimp decided on proportional representation in the primaries? And the Florida/Michigan fiasco? They all stem from the disintegrated, non-committal cross-directional PC swampland that is the anti-Clinton wing of the Democratic Party.
Brazile's DNC has become an embarrassing monument to why anti-Clinton Democrats never win the White House. Here's what a leader would do: scrap the superdelegates and seat Michigan and Florida. Whoever has the most pledged delegates is the nominee. That way, we either end up with President Clinton or President McCain -- I like either one.
Selective Sullivan
I followed this link from Andrew Sullivan's. I'll get to Sullivan's post in a bit because he quotes Victor Davis Hanson selectively, avoiding Hanson's even more potent point, which is:
"But his success seems to have been achieved with a slightly different calculus — 80-90 percent of the African-American vote, elite yuppie whites, and students and Moveon.org progressives."
and
"Since the agendas and past voting records of Obama and Clinton are nearly identical, and since he is the far more inspirational candidate, she hopes to tap into a growing resentment that his appeal is boutique for whites, and based on racial solidarity among African-Americans; the former turns off the working classes and the latter other minorities as well as poor whites. I think squaring that circle is every bit as problematic as McCain pacifying the conservative base.
I'd say a lot more problematic (not that I understand right-to-lifers to oppose the 'life of the mother' exception). Still, I don't think 'MoveOn' Obama would get anywhere with voters who follow Rush Limbaugh. But McCain would speak to middle/working class resentments towards a Brahmin candidate who (1) is getting a racial set-aside at the ballot box, and is (2) the hand-picked darling of Hypocrisy, Inc. (MoveOn.Daily Kos).
Hillary would haunt nominee Obama in the G.E. - McCain would never let the pro-Obama race-based double standard rest: "No party elders (Daschle/Kennedy) stepped in when Romney got a little rough. I can fend for myself as a candidate. I'll fend for myself as President." McCain camp accuses Obama of shameless plagiarism"of Hillary's economic plan -- that tells me McCain wants Hillary's base if Obama is the nom -- and he'd get it too.
By contrast, on immigration: it's clear anti-immigrant Pat Buchanan (who boasts of 'bodyslamming' Bush on McCain-Kennedy) woud not lead his forces against McCain to Obama's benefit. So G.E. McCain can run around yelling McCain-Kennedy/McCain-Feingold to swing McCain Democrats while Buck "I know what's coming" Buchanan looks the other way. (Buchanan thinks he can beat any President on immigration anytime he wants to.)
Beyond that, I've seen this boutique coalition between blacks and upscale whites fall apart before -- in tenant working groups, in the gay community, in citywide elections. It's as shaky a governing coalition as I can imagine. Blacks don't trust white ultra-leftists -- they want to use blacks as cannon fodder in their 'Revolution' rather than take up arms themselves. Who would get kicked to the curve in an Obama administration? MoveOn rank-and-file first, though the board members would get paid. Jesse Jackson Jr. would race bait MoveOn board members out of the picture pretty quickly--that would get very nasty. Jesse Jackson Jr. would get paid. 'Same old same old.'
Sullivan avoids Hanson's demographic points, instead defending Obama on the all talk/no action charge, ironically listing crisis leaders in war-time Churchill, Bush post-9/11, and Reagan as examples of effective rhetoric:
"The core of Ronald Reagan's success was his rhetorical ability to reach over the heads of the Washington process to the people who can force Washington to change: the American people."
Funny, I thought it was the cowboy hat. More with the Reagan crap. I don't recall Washington changing under Reagan. Deficits skyrocketed, the rich got richer, labor got fucked, Reagan Democrats suffered recession, but we did win the Cold War--the job that bastard was elected to do. Reagan was an ultra-nationalist. Obama is an anti-nationalist. An anti-nationalist cannot beat McCain. (Of course, Obama would just kick MoveOn to the curve and flip-flop on nationalism, but he'd look silly against a real combat aviator with a U.S. Navy pedigree that makes me want to hide under the bed.) There's rhetoric, and then there's empty rhetoric. McCain's speech on the hope that sustained him under torture was much more inspiring than Obama's vacuous pablum. And whatever charges we want to make about post-9/11 Bush, all talk/no action is not one of them.
More selectivity: quotes Taylor Marsh on the obnoxious Obama cult, but leaves out Marsh's direct quotes from cult members that speak for themselves. Or maybe Sullivan found the evidence of what Obama inspires too distasteful to repeat (trying to keep Obama's dirty secret a secret).
Sullivan's blog is a good starting place to survey the opposition, so I check in once a week. Take a good look at opposition Texas strategy:
Tuesday Money Bomb
I'm participating in the Clinton 'Money Bomb'. Go HERE to find out more about the online fundraiser scheduled for this Tuesday, February 12, 2008. $10.44 is the ticket.
Please distribute the news of this online fundraiser on as many blogs and lists as possible. Send the news of the fundraiser to as many contacts as possible by email too.
Contribute directly to the campaign at HillaryClinton.com:
