Crazy Prediction, Several Steps Right

I am completely over-stepping my bounds. I've no qualifications as an augur, a prognosticator. But I will defy those bounds and make a bold leap over all restraints: Barack Obama is going to shift rightward almost immediately. He has to.

If Mr. Obama intends on winning the 2012 election, he has to move to the right now. He knows that just a small swing in the electorate, something along the lines of ≤3% of the popular vote, may put him back doing community organizing in Chicago. So he has to go to the right; he has to move right to ensure that the independents and even the Republicans who voted for him do not leave him in four years.

Of course, as is his habit, he will be campaigning for the office of president in 2012 almost immediately.

Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, will swing WAY left. She sees Mr. Obama's dilemma and she's got to jump on it. She will hassle Mr. Obama from the far left like there is no tomorrow: he'll sound like Jesse Helms whenever she speaks about him.

Just a guess. But it's also a warning: Don't be seduced. His shift will disappear the second he gets reelected. In 2012, he'll go zooming leftward, for then he'll have nothing to lose.

©2008. All Rights Reserved.

The Key To Republican Success: One Of History's "Great" Presidents

Why is this woman



NOT the Democratic Party's 2008 nominee for president?

Simple. It is because of this man:



I cannot think of a single person I've spoken to who disagrees with this fact. I especially have never spoken to a single Democrat who disagrees. Bill Clinton's presidency was NOT one of the greatest in history, despite it having been described as such as he was introduced last night to the Democratic National Convention in Denver. A great presidency is never a liability to a successor, unless that successor is a gross mediocrity; and no one at last night's convention would countenance that Barack Obama is a mediocrity. But a bad presidency is a liability to anyone closely associated with it.

It is reported that Hillary Clinton is quite close to that liability.
____________________

What I have heard said by many conservative pundits since John McCain won the Republican presidential nomination (presumptively) is that John McCain was the "media's" choice for the Republican post. Of course, this assertion is always issued with contempt, as the media are largely portrayed by the conservative punditry as a hive of leftists. In many senses this is true; the media do tend left. And it is also true that many on the left, including those in the media, are not uncomfortable with a McCain presidency. I recall diehard leftists -- among my friends and family -- during the 2000 election cycle telling me that they were impressed with McCain and that I should be, too.

But if the media created John McCain's presumptive place atop the Republican Party, it was the Republican machinery -- along with countless conservatives -- that put Barack Obama atop the Democratic Party. Let me put it this way:

Why is this man



enjoying his ascendant celebrity?

Simple. It is because of this man:




During the height of the Democratic primary season, former Democratic vice-presidential nominee Geraldine Ferraro drew much attention to herself when she asserted that Barack Obama was enjoying great success in his bid for the White House because he was black. Of course, the attention Ms. Ferraro drew from her leftist peers was largely filled with ire, though some in her party were quite sympathetic to her views. While it could be reasonably argued that Ms. Ferraro's observation has some merit, her reasons for saying what she did were really a type of cover. What I believe Ms. Ferraro was doing was concealing something about the candidate she was not only supporting but advising: She was concealing the fact that her candidate, Hillary Clinton, was losing NOT because Barack Obama was black, but because Bill Clinton was her husband. (Please note that I am in no way impugning Mr. Obama's obvious abilities and talents.) Instead of looking at the heart of the problem, Ms. Ferraro looked to alleged external causes for her candidate's struggles.

Last fall, I attended a Barack Obama event. It was very much a surprise to the local folks who know me who were also in attendance, as my conservatism often precedes me when I go to such events. What I noted afterwards was how many liberals came up to speak to me; all had one thing in common. They agreed with the (very conservative?) position that the Clintons were a bad choice for the 2008 nomination; they agreed that Bill Clinton was a liability to winning the general election; they agreed that the Clinton machine would destroy and digest any person who stood in their way; they agreed that the Clintons were motivated by power and avarice.

But to what were these liberals agreeing? That's right. They were agreeing with what Republicans had been saying about the Clintons since 1992.

Hence, the Democratic Party, staring directly at the very competent wife of "one of the greatest presidents in history" and a US Senator in her own right, took its cues not from itself but from the Republicans' "Anyone-but-Billary" meme. By the thinnest margin, Hillary Clinton missed a nomination because of too much baggage, with her husband being most of that baggage. Barack Obama might NOT be a better leader, legislator, or chief executive, but he isn't a Clinton, and has a better chance of winning the general election because he was not born of such a pedigree; or so concluded many in the Democratic Party. Perhaps that explains why he did so well during his exploration process among the middle-aged white women comprising his earliest focus groups.

What I am saying is that the "vast right-wing conspiracy" has ultimately kept Hillary Clinton out of the White House... for now. But what I am also saying is this: The Democrats know where their party's weakest link is, and they don't want you to know it. Their weakest link is Bill Clinton. And it is for that reason that the Republicans should use all their muster to show why the Democrats don't really believe that Bill Clinton is the "greatest president" and why 9/11, the war on terror, and even the current housing crisis (or so they could argue) were all born during his presidency. Reminding voters of Bill Clinton's great national liability, and not Barack Obama's assumed weaknesses, is the key to Republican victory in November.

(One place to start: You know those "47 million uninsured Americans" who don't have health care and are being exploited by Democrats to foster sympathy for a nationalized health care system? Were they insured under Bill Clinton?)

___________________

Here's the calculus for a Republican win: Constantly remind the electorate that this man



is where he is because of this man



and because the Democrats don't want Americans to recall what occurred on Clinton's watch, under his "great leadership" when, as even he said last night, he led "our nation to a new era of peace and broadly shared prosperity." That the Clintons have been pushed aside by many in their party proves that Democrats accept the Republican verdict on Mr. Clinton's presidency: it was not what he and his party think it was.

And the Democratic Convention's penchant for revisionism, a revisionism brazenly shaped in plain view, reveals the party must conceal Mr. Clinton's failures.

"Peace," Mr. Clinton? What peace? The peace of the World Trade Center bombing? The peace in Somalia, the Balkans? The peace which led to continuous military strikes against Iraq? The peace in 1998, when Osama bin Laden issued his fatwa in the heart of your presidency, calling for the murder of Americans everywhere, and that largely because of your abuse of Iraq? You mean the peace that led to 9/11?

You get the picture, and it's grim. It's no wonder the Democrats are revising history before our eyes in Denver. They are desperate for change.

©Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Not In Unity

Early yesterday afternoon I called a friend of mine, a veteran photojournalist. I was certain he'd be in Unity, New Hampshire to cover the The Great Event, when Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton would publicly unify their heretofore antagonistic political campaigns. But when my friend answered his cellphone, I learned that he was still at home. Why was this award-winning photojournalist not in Unity? Why would he, a life-long Massachusetts Democrat, actually hand over such an historic photo assignment to a colleague?

His answer:

"I am so sick of politics, I don't care if I ever see another politician again. It's just going to be more of the same old crap. No thanks."

Perhaps my friend's cynicism is more than the result of so much political abuse. Maybe he's somewhat prophetic. Take, for example, the following quote from yesterday's Unity event, given by Mr. Obama as he praised his former foe, Hillary Clinton. Recall that much of Mr. Obama's campaign -- until yesterday -- consisted of him insisting that America did not need Hillary Clinton's vision for America. America needed his.

"I have admired her [Mrs. Clinton] as a leader. I have learned from her as a candidate… [Woman in crowd shouts, “Hillary rocks!”] She rocks. She rocks. That’s the point I am trying to make. (Mr. Obama laughs.) I am proud to call her a friend and I know how much we need both Bill and Hillary Clinton as a party and as a country in the months and years to come. They have done so much great work … But we need them. We need them badly, not just my campaign but the American people need their service and their vision and their wisdom in the months and years to come because that’s how we are going to bring about unity in the Democratic Party and that’s how we are going to bring about unity in America and that’s how we are going to deliver the American Dream in every corner of every state of this great nation that we love [wild cheering and applause]." [emphasis added]

Surely this sort of adulation of Mrs. Clinton is precisely the sort of thing my friend could not bear, knowing how just weeks ago Mr. Obama was adamant that the Clintons represented "more of the same." One can't forget Mr. Obama's insulting and humiliating quip during a televised Democratic presidential debate, "You're likable enough, Hillary." The slights, jibes, and insinuations have now turned to compliments and kindness; and the man who is presumably the Democratic Party's presidential nominee is now insisting that America needs the Clintons, and that we "need them badly."

Perhaps my friend would have been put off by this absurdity:

"I know that there have been times when those [outdated, allegedly sexist] biases have emerged and Senator Clinton has always brushed them off [gestures brushing things off his shoulders], dealt with them with her usual grace and aplomb. But I also know that while this campaign has shown us how far we have to go, it’s also proven the progress we have made. I know because of our campaign, because of the campaign that Hillary Clinton waged, my daughters and all of your daughters will forever know that there is no barrier to who they are or what they can be in the United States of America. They can take for granted that women can do anything that the boys can do, and do it better [Hillary nods approvingly to the audience] and do it in heels!" [emphasis added]

How nice, and how utterly inflated and foolish. Women and men cannot do the same sort of things, at least in many areas. It is a nice sentiment, of course; and there is no place in Unity for Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton to be as realistic as I can be here. But what is curious is that there is surely going to be silence in the wake of Mr. Obama's diminution of women's strength: "Women can do anything that the BOYS can do, and do it better." Indeed, I am sure most women can outperform the boys, Mr. Obama, but how will they fare against the men?

Maybe my photojournalist pal would have collapsed in a heap of disbelief as he listened to this bit of Obama hyperbole:

"That’s why in this moment, we have to come together not just as Democrats but also as Americans, united by our understanding that there is no problem we can’t solve, no challenge we cannot meet, as one nation, as one people."

No problem? Really. Today a family in Vermont grieves over their missing 12-year-old daughter. She is presumed abducted; she is one of thousands of girls who've disappeared in this country. How, pray tell, can Mr. Obama and his united country solve the problem of a missing, perhaps murdered, girl? No problem we can't solve, sir? Perhaps we'll -- together and united -- find out who murdered Nicole Brown Simpson.

And then there is this vacuity regarding Mr. Obama's commitment to ending the "war" in Iraq:

"…or we can decide that it is time to be in a responsible, gradual withdrawal from Iraq. … it is time to bring this war in Iraq to a close and that’s what we will be working with and working on when I am president of the United States, that’s the choice in this election. " [emphasis added]

Perhaps my friend would have disintegrated in the heat of the Unity rhetoric, noting that Mr. Obama's odd locution "that's what we will be working with and working on" lacks all conviction; Mr. Obama will be working on but not actually ending the "war" in Iraq, should he be president. And, like any candidate, Mr. Obama has promised that withdrawal from Iraq will be "gradual." Maybe the wild cheering at such inane and vacuous promises would have sent my friend rushing to the first aid kiosk for help with his sudden nosebleeds.

We can all concede that there is nothing new under the sun, particularly in politics, and those of us savvy to political rhetoric know that there is nothing ideologically or politically new to Barack Obama. Yesterday's Unity speech proves that if he represents "change," the change is ever so slight. And superficial.

©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

She Finally Turned The Corner, Diving Into Home, One Rung At A Time

In Maureen Dowd's recent column in the New York Times, posted after Barack Obama ostensibly clinched the Democratic Party nomination, we find a set of metaphors so mixed it would be nothing short of a miracle to learn that emergency rooms have not reported a sudden increase in fits of epilepsy.

What follows is some obscene blend of Viagra-laced canine cannibalism during a basketball game played by reluctant sprinters on a track combating a hostile takeover, all with a touch of sacred unction:

Barry [Ms. Dowd's appellative of Barack Obama falls short of witty] has been trying to shake off Hillary and pivot for quite a long time now, but she has managed to keep her teeth in his ankle and raise serious doubts about his potency. Getting dragged across the finish line Tuesday night by Democrats who had had enough of the rapacious Clintons, who had decided, if it came to it, that they would rather lose with Obama than win with Hillary, the Illinois senator tried to celebrate at the St. Paul arena where Republicans will anoint John McCain in September.

But even as Obama was trying to savor, Hillary was refusing to sever.

Lest readers think that "Barry" has dragged Mrs. Clinton across the finish line, her bitchy teeth sunk deep into his malleolus (or so illustrates Ms. Dowd), it's helpful to note that Ms. Dowd opines that it's Mr. Obama who's been dragged across the finish line, dragged by Democrats who would "rather lose with [him] than win with Hillary." (I should add that the canine imagery is to this writer suggestive of racism, with a white person setting the dogs on a black man, and is indicative of Dowd's deft touch.)

I am sure Mr. Obama loves reading that he's been dragged across the nomination finish line by Democrats who don't care about winning; or that he's been helped along because he's apparently incapable of winning a race on his own. I am sure he's also glad to learn from Ms. Dowd that he's quite dependent on Democrats' very affirmative actions.

And how could I fail to comment on Ms. Dowd's last sentence quoted above? Context only amplifies the problem, for contextually the sentence is just about one of the worst things I've ever read (it even fails the most saccharine cutesy tests). After all, it's Hillary, is it not, who has her mouth full of "Barry's" flesh; is she not the one savoring? And if Hillary is as rapacious as described by Ms. Dowd, wouldn't she love to sever "Barry's" Achilles tendon with her jaws?

Clarity, be damned!

©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

A Very Low Threshold

In this morning's New York Times op-ed by Bob Herbert titled "A Gift to the G.O.P.", in which Mr. Herbert chides the Democratic Party for its nasty infighting and protracted primary battles, we find this stunning statement:

But the Clinton and Obama partisans spent months fighting bitterly on the toxic terrain of misogyny, racism and religion. It can only make you wonder about the vaunted Democratic claims of moral superiority when it comes to tolerance. [emphasis added]

It should also make us wonder where Mr. Herbert has been for the past two decades (at least).

A line from an old film favorite, a true guilty pleasure, comes to mind: "Welcome to the party, pal!"

Welcome, indeed.

©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Maxed Out On Caffeine

[OK. The verdict is not yet in on my trial masthead. The votes are in, and it seems that I have missed the mark. Oiks! I guess I will have to try again.]
_____________________

Is this why a Starbucks coffee is so stinkin' expensive? Consumers are subsidizing corporate lunacy and equivocation? Venti! (I hear the coffee's actually free if you know the socialist party's secret password.)

Grande! Yes, we can!

_____________________


No doubt related to the Starbucks grande insanity, here's more proof that the Democratic Party has lost it. Remember: one of Bill Clinton's most-prized achievements while in office was free trade! I know, I know: his wife was for it before she was against it, AND vice versa. (Trend: We are against certain things in public that we privately support.)

At least we know that the coffee bean trade is fair.

Free range coffee beans, on the house!

Barack Obama: An Affirmative Action Nominee?

_____________________

Without ANY help from the dirty old political machine called the Republican National Committee, the Democrats are doing a fine job wreaking havoc on their own party.

Take Missouri Democrat Emanuel Cleaver, a US congressman. Here's a black man, admittedly loyal to Hillary Clinton, who, without flinching, says he'd be "stunned if [Obama] is not the next president of the United States."

Why does Rep. Cleaver believe Mr. Obama is likely to win? A news report, based on an interview Cleaver gave to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, gives us an answer:

In the interview, Cleaver insisted he would not back away from his endorsement of Clinton. He claims much of the support for Obama is driven by a sense that his election will prove the country has solved its problems with race.

“I think for many white Americans, they are looking at Barack Obama and saying ‘This is our chance to demonstrate that we have been able to get this boogeyman called race behind us,”‘ Cleaver said. “And so they are going to vote for him, whether he has credentials or not, whether he has any experience — I think all that’s out the window.” [emphasis mine]

Cleaver adds this gem about Mr. Obama being an "articulate" black man:

"For white Americans, it’s like, this guy can speak..."

So, WHITE Americans are just fascinated with Barack Obama as he's an "articulate" black man (by the way, Mr. Obama only seems articulate when reading his speeches, at least to this writer), is that it? And WHITE America is going to vote for him -- irrespective of whether he's qualified? All this to show that WHITES are no longer racist, or that America has solved the race problem?

(By the way, much of this sounds EXACTLY like what Shelby Steele said in his engaging books, White Guilt, and, though to a lesser degree, A Bound Man. Steele is a black man born of a white mother -- and conservative.)

Clearly we can conclude several things. First, once again, the DNC is not above injecting race into its own primary processes. Second, once again, someone's suggesting that Barack Obama will likely be president solely because he is well-spoken and black: Qualifications, be damned!

To paraphrase Rep. Cleaver: WHITE America is going to absolve itself by promoting a black man above those more qualified. All this suggests that this is an affirmative action project if there ever was one. (And I do not use the word 'project' without noting its brutal irony.)

_____________________

Alas, there is more. Rep. Cleaver cleaves a fine line between what race-conscious America wants and does not want.

Yet Cleaver asserts that Obama as president could actually hamper efforts to curb racial injustice. He said future concerns about race “would be met with rejection because we’ve already demonstrated that we’re not a racist nation.”

What does Rep. Cleaver mean? Is he suggesting that Americans -- black or white -- also DON'T want Barack Obama to be president? Will his election suggest race is no longer a national issue, and hence RACE as a political leveraging tool will be destroyed? Is he saying that whites will use Obama's presidency against those who still see racial injustice: "We can't be racially divided, we've elected a black man!"

It must be wondered, then, where all this leaves us. It seems to me that Mr. Cleaver is saying that Barack Obama as the nation's first black president will merely be symbolic, token, even, sadly, illusory.

Oiks! No wonder people grow tired of politics!


Peace.

(HT: James Taranto)

©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY'S MISTAKE

Identity Politics: I, (self-) defined by some particular characteristic of my body or soul, am a political constituency and force demanding legal, social and cultural approval and representation in all matters of this republic (or something like that) on the basis of how I identify myself to you and everybody else. I will brook no dissent: you will accept me on my terms, as I've struggled for approval and representation far too long to stop now.
_____________________

Rather than nominating for their party's candidate for President of the United States the most qualified, experienced person, the Democratic Party has instead essentially nominated two sacred icons, two holy archetypes: a person with dark skin and a person that is not a man. Rather than nominate a talented and skilled executive, like a Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, or Chris Dodd, the party faithful have decided that skin and sex trump achievement, aptitude and competency.

Alas, now the DNC and its members are in a double bind, one they no doubt hoped to wrap around the country in November. Instead, the party itself is trapped: If we choose the person with dark skin, we will be called sexist; if we choose the person with double XX chromosomes, we will be deemed racist. This can't be! Not us! We're Democrats!

Sexist, racist, sexist, racist. Has this not essentially been the heartbeat of the Democratic campaign? Forget the prevarications and postures over "experience." The exchanges that matter -- at least the ones reported by the press and noticed by the public -- are all about "injecting race" or "injecting gender." And what we are witnessing, especially those of us who consider ourselves political independents, is a big-tent party that no longer has a tent. It's a 3-ring riot, and this without the GOP elephant having to do a single trick.

_____________________

In 2006, Markos Zúniga, the founder of the world's largest blog, the incorrigibly leftist "The Daily Kos," said, "Republicans failed us because they can't govern. Democrats failed us because they can't get elected." I noted at this blog and elsewhere how odd a statement is Mr. Zúniga's, for winning elections is in part an indication of being able to govern.

The current Democratic Party imbroglio is largely the result of passion trumping reason, of ideals trumping ideas. Moreover, the Democratic Party's commitment to the role of "super-delegates," a term and role mostly absent from GOP vernacular and praxis, is rooted in a fear that the Democratic electorate might get things wrong. Hence, the super-delegates were designed to act like facilitators in a crisis intervention: they would intervene and set an errant party on the right course, one that would ensure that the most viable candidate (i.e., the person who could win in the general election) would be nominated. I recognize that you've heard this before; I mention it solely to remind readers that the role of the DNC's super-delegates is not, apparently, always that democratic. Really, the irony is almost too much.

All this exacerbates the aforementioned double-bind: if the super-delegates choose the woman, they are racist; and if they choose the black man, well, they are sexist and, possibly, closet racists acting out of "white guilt." What's the best resolution, at least for some? Put the two party icons on the same ticket. The problem? Neither icon wants to take a secondary role.

_____________________

In the 3 years I've been writing at Contratimes, I have written thrice about Rush Limbaugh. Today marks the fourth, and for good reason. Mr. Limbaugh asked an utterly simple yet brilliant question the other day: If the Democrats can't even run their own primaries, how can we expect them to run the country? And indeed it is quite evident that the Democrats can't run their own nomination process, nor can they even remotely unite their own party. Barack Obama is a uniter? Give us a break. Hillary? Are you kidding? Even recent polls show that the Democratic Party is splitting along racial lines: most blacks support Barack Obama over Hillary. This is unity? This is "healing?" [And then, as if on cue, comes these remarks from a black Democrat legislator. -- added 4.3.08]

Read this post-polling analysis from National Review Online's Byron York:

So — [Clinton and Obama are] both down five percent among whites, but Clinton is down 12 points among blacks, while Obama is unchanged. Thus, Clinton's overall positive rating is down more than Obama's. What does that say? It says what has been clear for a while now. The Democratic race is heavily racialized, and is perhaps becoming more so. Party leaders and pundits may be uncomfortable with that fact, but it's a fact nonetheless. [emphasis mine]

In the end, what we are witnessing is the clash of two icons in the mess of identity politics. Democrats were looking for a "winner" rather than a qualified chief executive; they went with persona and personality rather than qualifications and substantive ideas, and they've ended up in a wild mess. Indeed, some even may have hoped to use either icon as proof of America's true evils: If either icon is rejected in the general election, then Republican America is clearly racist and/or sexist.

Ironically, as Mort Kondracke observed recently, the double-bind problems around race and sexism are not the only double-binds facing the Democratic Party. Kondracke recalls that it was the Democrats in 2000 who hooted and hollered that the "popular vote" (which then-candidate Al Gore won in the general election) trumped the "electoral college," which George W. Bush and the United States Supreme Court purportedly hijacked. Now, should the Democrats face a decision at their Denver convention where one candidate holds the lead in the popular vote but the other holds more delegates, one can almost see the paralysis. Hoisted by their own petard as a result of their petulant and indignant reaction 8 years ago, the Democrats will find themselves in a quagmire. In fact, they've led themselves right into one, and this without ANY help from Karl Rove, Fox News, or even Donald Rumsfeld.

And these are the folks who can save us from the "quagmire" of Iraq? Are these the folks Mr. Zúniga believes can govern?

How curious.


©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Wife Guilt: Why Some Women Stand By Their Men (And Other Realities)

Eliot Spitzer’s downfall has brought much discussion to the airwaves and blogosphere, with no small part of that discussion comprising speculations as to why his beloved wife, Silda, would stand at his much disgraced side. Very cynical commentators have suggested that her marital posture reveals a dark political strategy, or some nefarious desire to hold on to power. The same commentators liken Mrs. Spitzer’s resolute stance to Hillary Clinton’s allegedly politically calculated commitment to her unfaithful husband. Others see a heroic woman trying to hold her family together, while some see a woman too stupid to see she’s been shamed and abused by an aggressive and arrogant husband. (One conservative female blogger might not see Mrs. Spitzer as stupid, but surely she sees abuse in parading Mrs. Spitzer out onto the stage.)

There is much to say about all these observations, but I am not the person to say it. My default position is to see a woman who is in shock; I see a woman who looks like she has been forced to witness the execution of her children. If you ask me, Mrs. Spitzer looks in dire need of healing.

But I also see in Mrs. Spitzer's actions the possibility of Wife Guilt: The reason she is standing with her husband is because she feels guilty for sexually failing her husband. I can almost hear the tape in her head: It’s my fault, for what sort of wife fails to keep her husband happy? How could a wife of such an important man – a man attractive in so many ways – fail to keep her man satisfied? How could a wife who is clearly attractive, even beautiful, fail to keep that man content? I'm responsible for this: surely there must be something wrong with me!

And that is indeed what no one seems to be exploring: there might be something wrong. All kinds of married couples have ceased sexual relations with each other; we all know that things change in marriages. Many women in this country suffer from depression, and menopause is no small hindrance to sexual excitement, especially when depression or chronic fatigue is part of the equation. Many wives know that their husbands’ sexual urges do not decline with age, at least in the same way as a woman who has stopped ovulating loses her "urges." No doubt this puts such wives in a very precarious place. And so, too, their husbands, who are daily, even hourly, bombarded with sexual images and invitations for "mind-blowing" pleasures.

I have heard of several married couples who have made curious and risky sexual compromises with each other. Some wives give tacit approval to their husbands to solicit extra-marital sex so to keep their men happy, but only as long as such husbands recognize their offshore ventures are to be strictly about sex (no love allowed!). I know one menopausal woman who said recently that she would prefer it if her husband would just go out and find a little satisfaction, for she is too tired and too guilty to help him. I once dined (sort of) with a very progressive bi-sexual Episcopal priest and his wife who had struck an even more curious deal: she could have heterosexual extra-marital affairs, while he enjoyed sexual liaisons with men. The one caveat was that they could not commit “real adultery” by falling in love with their respective lovers. Sadly, couples strike deals, implicit and explicit, all the time.

Perhaps the Spitzers had a similar sort of deal, maybe even one that went unspoken. Maybe Mrs. Spitzer is ill. Or maybe Gov. Spitzer was cavorting with very high price prostitutes because there was some guarantee of anonymity; a "typical" affair would be too messy and too risky, even if his wife approved. Maybe some high-end escort services are set up strictly to serve clientele that cannot do the normal “public affairs” route. Husbands who believe they have the tacit approval for this sort of behavior nonetheless feel they must be discreet, so spending big money is seen as a sort of protection.

I realize, of course, that I am speculating about the unknown realities of the Spitzer marriage bed. But I am not speculating about the realities of many married couples, the impulses of men, and the fact that many wives feel guilty for losing their sexual passions (or for simply getting old). One of my childhood friends lost his wife to cancer in a slow and miserable death; her guilt for not being able to have sex with him as she slowly died was one of the burdens he could not carry for her no matter how hard he tried to reassure her that he was fine (and boy, the guilt he felt for thinking about sex beyond her death, while she was still alive, was nearly enough to kill him).

All this to say that we do not know the reasons Mrs. Spitzer is standing on the dais with her fallen husband. But guilt might be the reason she’s not running toward divorce court. Sadly, much of that guilt is often self-imposed, reinforced by a culture that tells us that we not only CAN have it all – success, luxury, power, money, sexual fulfillment, perpetual health and beauty – but that we MUST have it all.

In short, in all of this, I see nothing but grief and sorrow, and a great deal of ugliness.

But, in the end, even if there is no dysfunction in the Spitzer bedroom, even if Mrs. Spitzer feels no guilt at all, there is the distinct chance she still feels responsible. I, at least, have known more than a few women who have taken responsibility for ALL the problems in their marriages. And that, as we all know, is a terrible weight to carry.

(One note: I had a very cynical college buddy who believed that the best way to keep a woman attached to you was to pull away from her; cheating on her was seen as the best way to keep her close. His theory was based on vanity, that the woman would be drawn closer to her cheating man to find out how she had fallen out of favor. The woman would fret to no end: Have I lost my allure? my beauty? my sex appeal? Did I do something wrong? My friend felt this worked even if the guy was a loser. But it especially worked if he was a great success, at least in the eyes of the world. Surely a successful man who wandered was saying that his wife was not up to par, no? That there was something wrong with her?

Of course, PAYING for sex is not the best evidence that a guy is particularly skilled at romancing the ladies.)

Peace.

BG

©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

In Loco Parentis: America's Two Crazy Parents (DNC & GOP)

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

I Had A Dream

I recall being rather dismissively treated by some of my college schoolmates; not a few of them found me too serious, too cerebral. A friend reported to me that, after my graduation, several underclassmen snickered at my senior portrait in the yearbook (published in the fall following commencement); my friend reported that some of my former Fighting Scots found my printed visage rather too professorial and stern. So, of course, in response to their sour and dour summaries, I cogitated in their general direction.†

The last few posts here at Contratimes prove that I am more than mind: I have a heart that can be quite passionate. And I am passionate about one thing: Even if I disagree with Barack Obama's answers to some of the world's toughest problems, he is my brother. And I've got a lot of feelings about that.

A few minutes ago, I spotted in my email queue a letter from Michelle Obama, Barack Obama's wife. It is titled, "What we didn't expect." Clearly, the title tells it all; I need not read it to know what it is she and her husband did not expect. Sure the cynic beneath my skin could voice rather glibly that she should have expected what most everyone else did -- we knew what the Clintons are like, at least as they pursue their dreams.

This morning, in the comments to my earlier post, In The Breakdown Lane: Seeing Red ... And Feeling Blue, I offered some advice to Mr. Obama. Yes, I know my advice is more heart than head and more dream than crafted policy statement, but it is my advice nonetheless. It is the idealist in me -- informed by cynicism -- that speaks here; it is the speech writer hidden in my breast that wishes to hear someone speak what needs to be said. I am reminded of the title of a book by Frederick Buechner given me this past Christmas; the title is drawn from Shakespeare: Speak What We Feel, And Not What We Ought To Say. It may be my dream, but it is a dream wherein my feelings are remarkably clear, vibrant, ringing like bells hammered on a crisp winter night.

My advice to Mr. Obama is for him to say the following during his next debate with Mrs. Clinton:

'...if leading this country, Mrs. Clinton, means that I have to act and campaign like you do; if it means being mean-spirited and cutting and underhanded and duplicitous; if it means that I have to offend my convictions in order to score political points over you or any rival, then I must say that I am tempted to walk away from this race. I shall not stoop to what you believe is "real politics;" I reject that very reality. Call me naïve and unrealistic or "unprepared;" I'll gladly take that as a compliment coming from you. But I believe in a presidency that is shrewd and prudent without dishonor; that is wise without mendacity; that is able to confront problems without feigning omniscience. I am a man who seeks the highest office in the world; but if you embody that office's ideals, then I can only say that -- for me -- the office is no longer sufficiently elevated. I want no part of it; my feelings are clear. I am not running to foment cynicism. I am running to lead this country towards greatness. But I can't be a great leader, Mrs. Clinton, if I follow you where no great leader should ever go.'


Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

PS. The cynic in me suspects projection as a political weapon: I would not be surprised (forgive me!) if it was Mrs. Clinton who said something like what I've written above ... to Barack Obama!!

†Monty Python fans should get this allusion.

In The Breakdown Lane: Seeing Red...And Feeling Blue

The beauty of being idealistic is that the idealist has not yet fallen into cynicism. Youth may be wasted on the young, but that is not the fault of those who happen to enjoy youth. And idealism may be youth’s beauty mark born of simple purity, but surely the ugly loss of ideals is rarely caused by the misdeeds of children. No, it is the adults who destroy innocence, who shatter ideals and scar beauty with subtle abuse. Cynicism is often handed down like a legacy, the last will and testament of what it means to be a ‘grown up.’

My sense as a middle-aged man observing the conflict between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton is that millions of Mr. Obama’s supporters are about to have their ideals smashed by the Clinton campaign. At best, at the end of all this, youth’s enthusiastic naïveté (which is not idealism’s sibling) will be chased with a bitter draught of gall.

How can the Clinton campaign, which has clearly misrepresented Mr. Obama -- the ever-gentle man -- expect to inspire that generation of voters who are just beginning to pay attention to politics? Do Mr. and Mrs. Clinton really believe they can ignore the damage they are inflicting on the youngest members of the electorate, that set who overwhelmingly support Mr. Obama in his bid to be the Democratic Party nominee? Or do they believe that, after winning the White House, they can heal the damage that is done? Maybe their forced remedy will come before the White House: perhaps they will offer Mr. Obama a job around the White House, like the vice-presidency or some high profile cabinet post. (He’d be a fool to take it.)

Or perhaps, like so many power-grabbing “me-first” go-getters, the Clintons just don’t care. Maybe this explains Mrs. Clinton’s very first campaign slogan: “I am in this to win.” Her transparency could not be more disgusting: she’s not in “this” to lead or serve America. She is in “to win.” Unfortunately, too few of us have the courage to remind ourselves -- and our neighbors -- of the ghastly truth that people who are “in to win” are generally the worst people in the neighborhood -- and the world.

I am no partisan in this fight, nor am I a supporter of any candidate. I am merely a witness to history, and the history I am witnessing makes me sick. Yesterday, while tuned to the Rush Limbaugh show on the car radio, I nearly cried as I listened to a clip of Mrs. Clinton’s grotesque misrepresentations of Mr. Obama’s statements; I felt like screaming as I heard her commit the fallacy of equivocation (among other things). If I was not a law-abiding citizen, I might have even stopped and exited my car so I could search for something to vandalize.

Largely, my sorrow was directed at the young voters I know who believe in a world that Mr. Obama also believes in, a world of decency and civility and even elegance. Mr. Obama’s vision is, in an ideal sense, a trans-partisan world where the ideals of civility and prudence and tolerance and understanding abound. But I was also angry for Mr. Obama, angry enough to shout to the world that he would be far better treated if he were a Republican; that he’d win his party’s nomination and even the presidency if he were a member of the Grand Old Party.

What do readers think would be the outcome of the GOP race for the nomination had Condoleezza Rice or Colin Powell run for the nation’s highest office? I am sorry...call me a fool; I think either one of them would have been a shoe-in. No other candidates could have stood a chance against them.

I know: I am a fool.

Of course, I admit my native idealism is showing through here, as is my cynicism: both are in a battle, and I’d like to believe my idealism might finally win. But today I am stubbornly prone to aver that if Mr. Obama was indeed a Republican, he’d be president tomorrow if the election were held today. And I further admit that even this very essay may fuel cynicism in the young, and even the old. But my aim is for something higher than merely venting my irascibility or distemper...I do not want to suppress the human spirit. My aim is this audacious hope: I hope that idealism will finally have victory over the deeply cynical, mean-spirited and dire campaign that is being run by the Clintons.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All rights reserved.

The Pain Of The Obvious

The linguistic-forensic specialists have unanimously concluded that a crime has been committed. Well, maybe only I have reached that conclusion. But it’s still unanimous.

Though it was a brain jarring slip-of-the-tongue moment, Hillary Clinton somehow managed to escape the watchful eyes of pundits everywhere. But I, your ever-vigilante sleuth, was not lulled into inattention by Mrs. Clinton’s performance on Sunday’s Meet the Press†. Of course, it was easy for me to be ever-vigilante: Mrs. Clinton’s misstep was the very first answer she gave in her conversation with MTP host Tim Russert.

MR. RUSSERT: When we arrived in South Carolina yesterday this was The State newspaper, and the headlines agree to this. And let me share it with you and our viewers: “Clinton Camp Hits Obama, Attacks ‘painful’ for black voters. Many in state offended by criticism of Obama,” and ‘remarks about’ Martin Luther King. Bob Herbert, in The New York Times, columnist, weighed in this way: “I could also sense how hard the Clinton camp was working to undermine Senator Obama's main theme, that a campaign based on hope and healing could unify rather than further polarize the country. So there was the former president chastising the press for the way it was covering the Obama campaign and saying of Mr. Obama's effort, ‘The whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen.’ And there was Mrs. Clinton telling the country we don't need ‘false hopes,’ and taking cheap shots at, of all people, the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. We've already seen Clinton surrogates trying to implant the false idea that Mr. Obama might be a Muslim, and perhaps a drug dealer to boot.” What is this all about?

SEN. CLINTON: Well, beats me, because there's not one shred of truth in what you've just read. And I regret that, because obviously a lot of people have been, you know, given information or an impression that is absolutely false.

Had I been sitting in Mr. Russert’s stead, I think Mrs. Clinton’s comments would have given me more than a moment’s pause. For what I hear is Mrs. Clinton regretting that there was not one shred of truth in the statements Mr. Russert cited; she would have NOT regretted things if they had been true. Perhaps if I parse her statement with a little more assiduity I will find some clarification:

GNADE: Why do you have regrets, Mrs. Clinton?

MRS. CLINTON: “…because obviously a lot of people have been, you know, given information or an impression that is absolutely false.”

GNADE: Do forgive me, Mrs. Clinton. But am I hearing you correctly? It sounds like you are saying that you would have no regrets if the impression, i.e., that Mr. Obama is offering “false hopes,” that Dr. Martin Luther King was essentially impotent without the help of a white president, that Mr. Obama is a Muslim or a former drug dealer, and so on -- you’d have no regrets if these were true? Is that what you are saying?

MRS. CLINTON: There you go again, Bill, putting words in my mouth and ripping what I’ve said out of context. I am tired of you people putting –

GNADE: With all due respect, Mrs. Clinton, but “you people”? Are you sure that such language is fitting? THIS interview IS the context of the words you just uttered. And rather than putting words in your mouth, I am taking them out, as you just offered them freely; they’re your words, not mine. And it sounds to me that you are saying you’d have no regrets if these things were true.

_______________________

SHE COULD NOT HAVE MEANT IT

In the past few days, I have heard pundits and press tell me that what Mrs. Clinton essentially said about Dr. King was entirely true, harmless, and not one whit racist. Fred Barnes, conservative commentator for Fox News and editor of The Weekly Standard, announced that he had no problem with what Mrs. Clinton averred. Conservative radio oracle Jay Severin stamped his imprimatur on Mrs. Clinton’s words. And the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page states that

“On the merits, Mrs. Clinton obviously is correct. It did take a President’s signature to bring the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to fruition. And the idea that saying so takes anything away from King’s legacy is absurd.” (WSJ, January 14, 2008)

To me this is so much pedantic affirmation. I am left with the sense that such pundits and opinion-makers think that it is OK for Mrs. Clinton to state “what every one knows.” For if that is indeed the case – if Mrs. Clinton was merely offering us a moment of historical clarity in pronouncements of the obvious – then we are still left wondering why she should be given a pass. Clearly she knows we “ALL KNOW” this historical fact; clearly we do not need her to suddenly turn into a school teacher with a Cliff Notes lesson. She’s not running for presidential pedagogue; her comments are indeed unnecessary if we are all well aware of the monumental importance of LBJ and his liberating pen. Surely Mrs. Clinton knows two things when she teaches us the plain history of the Civil Rights Act: First, that we all know Dr. King did not sign the Act; second, that many African-Americans will NOT respond kindly to the reminder that their liberation did not ultimately come from themselves. The Great White President set them free; HE granted their petitions.

Moreover, Mrs. Clinton was undeniably contrasting herself as the president who could deliver; she would be the (white?) executor of the sort of hopes that Mr. Obama could dream about but never fulfill. He offers mere hope while she offers action. He has visions; she makes decisions.

You get the picture, and it should not be a pretty one. Mrs. Clinton actually WAS playing a race card in her seemingly innocuous statements. (This all reminds me of a talk radio discussion I commented on regarding “racist facts.”) It means nothing to me that Mrs. Clinton was stating the truth, for the truth is, as we all know, often brutally painful. One recalls the biblical exhortation that we are to speak the truth in love. Telling one’s lover the truth – “Geez, you’re fat!” – may be a truth “everybody knows,” but sometimes love (and political wisdom) urges us to suppress the obvious. "The truth hurts" is no cliché. It is instead a reminder that we all need to be a little more circumspect when we speak, Mrs. Clinton included.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

†See transcript here.

Why Hillary?

Pundits and pollsters are perplexed. So am I. But I am neither pundit nor pollster. Politics is more a visceral rather than cerebral sport for me: I go with hunches and feelings and intuitions. And my hunches were wrong, dead wrong. I had Barack Obama easily winning New Hampshire, with John Edwards coming in second and Hillary Clinton stumbling in at third. All I can do is laugh at myself.

________________________

Why Hillary?

Since I am not a pundit of any professional stature, I will not bore you with lengthy expositions on theory. Instead, I will quickly offer several reasons I think Mrs. Clinton won.

1. The Vanity Vote (aka The Snob Factor)

New Hampshire voters are vain and they guard that vanity well: There is no way that New Hampshire voters will often permit themselves to like those folks from Iowa. Barack Obama's success in Iowa was his doom here. New Hampshire voters believe they are more perceptive, informed, discerning than other voters; they pride themselves in being deeply involved. In 1984, Iowans chose Walter Mondale, but NH chose Gary Hart. In 1988, Dick Gephardt took Iowa while Mike Dukakis took NH. In 1992, Iowa went with Tom Harkin as NH took Paul Tsongas. And though Al Gore and John Kerry won both states' early elections in 2000 and 2004, respectively, this year marks a return to the old trend. New Hampshire not only wants to preserve the image that its primary is truly unique, the state wants to maintain its image of fierce independence.

2. The 'Minority' Vote (aka The Nostalgic Feminist Vote)

On the 2008 Democratic ticket voters are asked to choose between two minorities, a black man and a woman. Since exit polls show that New Hampshire's gray-haired females voted for Mrs. Clinton, we can safely conclude that such voters believe it is 'Hillary's time.' New Hampshire voters apparently believe that the first minority to walk into the Oval Office as president should be a woman, and not a black man. No doubt Mr. Obama's youth worked against him here, as voters probably believe that his chance for the White House will come later; he cometh too soon. Now is the time for a woman.

Undeniably, voters believe Hillary hasn't a future chance at the White House: This time truly IS her time. And with a dearth of viable women candidates (who else?) coming up through the Democratic Party, Hillary's need trumps the African American dream, but only for a season.

Related to this almost nostalgic view of feminist aspirations, the Bill Clinton factor looms large in its own nostalgic way. When I reported yesterday that an amazing number of folks who attended a local Bill Clinton event on Monday exited with this on their lips -- "I wish I could vote for him again!" -- I failed to report that the vast majority of those who uttered those words were OLDER women. I, dope as I am, misunderstood their words: I was certain they realized that a vote for Hill was actually an impossibly nostalgic vote for Bill. No one who felt that way for him would vote for his wife, I assured myself; the swooning electorate had to realize that she and he are NOT identical.

No surprise. I was wrong.

3. The War Vote (aka The Commander-in-Chief in a Dress Vote)

Irrespective of how downplayed in the media the Iraq War has become, shrewd voters know that it remains the country's largest issue, at least its largest foreign policy issue. Voters also know that John McCain, who has a real shot at winning the Republican nomination, is a true hawk and is, in many ways, responsible for the "success" of the Iraq "surge" led by General David Petraeus. Hence, New Hampshire voters descried that any viable Democratic candidate could not be a flight-or-flight dove.

Hillary Clinton's win here is nothing short of a massive blow to the anti-war left. After all, it was the Clinton administration -- even after leaving office -- that issued dire warnings about Saddam Hussein's renegade ways and the threat he posed to national security. Mrs. Clinton was remarkably hawkish throughout the "run up" to war; she was not a protester but one of the principal supporters of the Iraq invasion. Her defenses of the Bush Doctrine even mollified the anxieties of many in the middle left of her party.

Of course, analytical Democrats have ALWAYS known that the invasion of Iraq was not merely cooked up by the Republican Bush; in 1998, President Bill Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act that called for regime change in Iraq, which became part-and-parcel integral to the Bush Doctrine. Analytical Democrats know that Iraq is a central foothold for American self-preservation in a hostile Middle East; and they know that ANY Republican success there will leave someone like John McCain in a very pretty and patriotic light; someone like Barack Obama -- who boasts of opposing the war even when he was a mere state senator in Illinois -- will be left in the worst possible light (the worst thing that can happen to Barack Obama's ambitions is for Iraq to go well). Voters know that Mrs. Clinton has maintained a conveniently ambiguous and politically expedient position that allows her to take credit for positive gains in the War on Terror.

In other words, Hillary Clinton's success in New Hampshire has everything to do with ensuring that the Democrats' nominee for president can defend American military involvement in the Middle East, particularly in the face of John McCain's strong military background and political successes. The only viable candidate on the Democratic ticket who can address the war issue in a responsible manner is -- without question -- Hillary Clinton. Unless Iraq turns into a glaringly obvious mess, which is quite possible, Hillary Clinton takes the nomination.

_______________________

I should add that there was also the "Pity Vote" based on Mrs. Clinton's apparent struggle as a woman to get a fair hearing; and the "Blame the Media" vote (the Pity Vote's little sister) managed by Bill Clinton, which included the suggestion that Barack Obama has been given a pass by the media -- enamored as they are with Obama's alleged "fairy tale" life narrative -- partly because he is black.

Again, just some hasty post-primary thoughts.

Peace.

Bill Gnade

©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

O'bummer

To say that I am shocked by the result of tonight's Democratic Party primary in New Hampshire is undeniable. I have been walking around for the past few days predicting that Barack Obama would EASILY win in New Hampshire, and that John Edwards would come in second. Hillary Clinton, I predicted, would come in third. Tonight, while watching the precinct reports come in, my incredulity was so pointed I suspected voter fraud! Hillary Clinton wins? Are you kidding me?

Tonight I will go to bed with one fact to consider: I am terrible at prognostication. I shall leave off making predictions from now on. I've no right playing the prophet. No right at all.

(This night also raises further questions about the predictive value of exit polls. Of course, I noticed on Fox News that there was something of a prediction about the predictions: Fox News was citing in advance what the polls suggested without waiting till all the exit polls were tallied. Around 9:oo pm EST, Fox posted the final exit poll data; Clinton won by two points [or thereabouts]. Moreover, about midday I heard a radio report that some exit polls were showing Obama was winning by 10 percentage points or greater. Such reports could surely affect those voters heading to cast a ballot who have a bit of the love of the underdog in them, you know, they are sympathy voters. Yesterday Hillary "cried"; yesterday her husband declared that the media were being unfair; today it seemed she was getting beaten up. Could not a few voters have cast their votes Hillary's way simply so she would not be too badly beaten, too badly embarrassed?)

O'bummer, indeed.

By the way, Barack Obama's concession speech was the best of the night. My conviction is rather bland but not blandly held: Obama's concession speech was more inspiring -- and more interesting -- than ANY victory speech Hillary Clinton could ever deliver.

Just a few post-primary thoughts.

Peace to you,

Gnade

©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

The Day Of Evacuation

Happy New Year!

Despite the belatedness of that salutation, I sincerely pray as I begin today a new year of blogging, that this new year will truly be a blessed one for all my readers and friends. God speed!

________________________

In just a few short hours, THEY will all just leave. They will leave New Hampshire faster than autumn foliage flies off trees in an October hurricane; they will leave faster than leaf-peepers empty their rooms at sundry inns at the first sign of heavy snow, or as fast as skiers leave the slopes in a downpour.

But in their rush to get out of here, jetting off to South Carolina or Michigan, THEY will leave behind thousands of campaign signs buried in December's record-breaking snows. It should be an ugly spring, as receding snowbanks reveal evidence of some strange temporary civilization, like creeping sand dunes reveal the detritus of a forsaken temple and court. Huckabee and Obama signs will appear in March; and Henry Hewes' name will stick out of the April mud, prompting not a few to ask, "Who the hell is Henry Hewes?"

Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Richardson, Kucinich, Dodd, McCain, Romney, Huckabee, Guiliani, Paul, Hunter -- these are just a few of the names that peer over snowbanks, that shout from telephone poles, that litter the New Hampshire landscape. Yes, tomorrow morning staffers will try -- in theory, at least -- to ride the roads and byways to retrieve the refuse of the democratic process; to collect signs of their favorite names. But they will not completely succeed to rid our land of this blight; there will be more than enough forensic evidence left behind to prove that some sort of crime has been committed.

Outsiders cannot know what it is like to be in this state, especially in those particularly gorgeous or photogenic or quirky areas of the Granite State that attract candidates for photo ops. Satellite trucks and news crews and photographers and placard-carrying supporters -- many supporters from every state but this one -- choke our streets, our sidewalks: a parking spot Saturday in Peterborough, NH was won with a prayer and toss of the dice, as was a seat in any restaurant, as McCain, Kucinich and Clinton campaign workers (these three were the most evident this day) brought their message everywhere. Such would be the routine the next day, and then the day after that, and then the day after that. And then? Well, tonight, everyone disappears.

________________________

Yesterday I saw Bill Clinton. While his presence in my hometown was not huge, it was -- to some -- hugely disruptive.

Here's something for you to consider. As I stood outside the Peterborough Town House after Mr. Clinton's town hall-type meeting, dozens of folks walked by me as they exited that fine event. Not everyone exiting that impressive red-brick hall passed my way, but many did. And the most common statement I overheard was this, always uttered with a mix of dreamy nostalgia and wistfulness: "I wish I could vote for him again!" One must assume that such comments are not good news for Mrs. Clinton: voters LIKE her because they LOVE her husband. Such comments prove that this might very well be all about Bill: a vote for Hillary is really a vote for some vague, shadowy even mythological past. Indeed, as I stood in a gaggle of gawkers hoping to ogle the former president, everyone to a person commented with all due conviction just how "good he is" at communicating; that Bill Clinton just loves to work a crowd. But there were no similar comments in this nearly all-blue Democratic town directed at Mrs. Clinton. She was just "nothing special."

________________________

Barack Obama comes out of New Hampshire the winner, or so I (easily!) predict (McCain will win the Republican vote, but it will not be the big news, nor will it last). But it must be remembered that New Hampshire has become something of a very quirky state: This is a state obsessed with politics (in a sense, it is probably our biggest industry). In fact, I would say politics are far more a religion in this state -- especially for those on the left -- than in many other parts of the United States. This ardor and zeal -- entirely overwrought, in my opinion -- is the direct result of New Hampshire's grip on the first in the nation primary. Should a national lottery be instituted that breaks that grip, the power base in this state -- also overwrought and misplaced and even a bit unnatural -- would be weakened considerably. In fact, a case could be made that the primary in New Hampshire is a stranglehold: diversity of opinion and opportunity are suppressed by a machinery that prepares constantly to mold a new leader every four years. Money pours in here by the train load; shakers and movers keep shaking but they don't really move, staying put to prepare the ground for the next election cycle.

For me, I am all for sharing the first primary with other states. I think a different state should start the process every cycle, and that a state should learn whether it will host a primary no more than 9 months in advance. I think we would get a better sense of the democratic process if candidates were unsure where they should begin their bids. Just think of how fun it would be to see candidates hastily stake out turf in a state that -- unlike New Hampshire -- has not been preparing for them for 3 or 4 years.

But I did start this section by pointing out that New Hampshire is a quirky state. In 1992, Republican Pat Buchanan nearly won the primary over George Bush I. But this was simply a protest vote: it was meant to push the elder Bush further to the right (Buchanan would win in 1996 over Bob Dole in a similar protest). The Buchanan protest tactic was to send a message: don't forget your values. The Obama victory may -- I emphasize MAY -- be in part a message to other Democratic front-runners, particularly Mrs. Clinton: We want you to be more like HIM.

Just primary thoughts.

Peace to you,

Gnade

©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Peggy Noonan On The Hill

Last week I directed readers to an incisive comment posted by James Taranto of OpinionJournal. Today I can't resist directing readers to Peggy Noonan's essay comparing Hillary Clinton and Margaret Thatcher. And like Mr. Taranto, Ms. Noonan pens one of the most trenchant comments I've seen in a long time. Here's what she said regarding Mr. Barack Obama's campaign to secure the Democratic presidential nomination vis-á-vis Mrs. William Clinton:

I am not sure of the salience of Mr. Obama's new-generational approach. Mrs. Clinton's generation, he suggests, is caught in the 1960s, fighting old battles, clinging to old divisions, frozen in time, and the way to get past it is to get past her. Maybe this will resonate. But I don't think Mrs. Clinton is the exemplar of a generation, she is the exemplar of a quadrant within a generation, and it is the quadrant the rest of us of that generation do not like. They came from comfort and stability, visited poverty as part of a college program, fashionably disliked their country, and cultivated a bitterness that was wholly unearned. They went on to become investment bankers and politicians and enjoy wealth, power or both.

It is a brilliant, devastating comment.

Ms. Noonan's essay makes me cheer for Mr. Obama; and it makes me wish I had met Ms. Thatcher.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Right? You Can't Make This Stuff Up Indeed

An anonymous comment was posted here this morning, though the person who penned it hid behind a pseudonym, Robert Throckmorton (the comment seems to have come through a server in Ames, Iowa, caucus country). And the comment suggested that I was paranoid and full of something like digested hay for thinking (see my essay here) that the Imus story was much bigger than race and sex (and that these were even distractions). The issue, I augured, was that this is about who will be the next president. (And I augured even more than this.)

Let me remind readers that Don Imus constantly referred to Hillary Clinton as "Satan." As wrong or as unfortunate as this may be, Mr. Throckmorton thinks that I am paranoid for thinking that Ms. Clinton benefits -- supremely -- from Don Imus' silence.

Now note this: Ms. Clinton is going to speak at Rutgers on Monday. Yes, I know. Paranoid delusions on my part.

This is all about winning -- for Ms. Clinton. She is, in her own words, in the presidential campaign "to win." As if there is any other option. So, desperately seeking affirmation and the prize, Ms. Clinton is going to steal the limelight -- steal it from a Rutgers women's basketball team, from Al Sharpton, from Don Imus and from Barack Obama. No doubt Ms. Clinton can exploit commiseration to great effect, for she -- all female -- has also been the victim of Don Imus' sexism. That this whole story used to be about a runner-up basketball team whose achievements were overshadowed by the easily ignorable comments of an old white guy is worth noting, particularly since it is no longer about that at all, proving, at last, that it never was. Surely Ms. Clinton has heard that the Rutgers team has accepted Mr. Imus' apology, and that they'd like to move on and get on with living -- and on with the celebration the team still richly deserves. But that has no place in her campaign, for the limelight she is going to steal is about to be rather large and rather bright: the media presence at Rutgers will be so overpowering that it will be hard not to believe that Ms. Clinton already is president. Perfect.

Of course, no one dare suggest that Ms. Clinton is going to exploit the misfortunes of a group of women who have accepted an apology. After all, it may be the case that the Rutgers team has given Imus some sort of absolution, but that does not mean all other women have to follow their example: Other women can still hold a grudge against the I-man.

It's funny. I have been apologetic to Contratimes readers for speculating beyond the prima facie evidence of this whole story. Clearly my paranoia is rooted in some shallow soil. The soil of reality.

But I may still be wrong.

Alas! One more paranoid tidbit: Hillary Clinton, according to the report cited above, has had a longstanding open invitation to speak to the "The Eagleton Center for American Women and Politics" at Rutgers. Can anyone say "motive?" I can.

Odd that I should have been speculating that the machinery behind Don Imus' sudden fall was larger than Al Sharpton. I now see why.

I wonder, Mr. Throckmorton, what you see.

Peace.

(Still experimenting, so bear with me.)

©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Technorati tags:
Don Imus, Racism, Rutgers Basketball, Al Sharpton, Language, Censorship, Hillary Clinton, Reparations, Sexism, Bigotry, CBS, MSNBC, Presidential Politics, Barack Obama, Charles McCord, Bernard McGuirk, Al Sharpton, Sid Rosenberg