Saturday, May 10, 3:53pm (or so)—Obama Passes Clinton in Superdelegates

FoxNews just reported that the Obama campaign has picked up three superdelegates and now has more superdelegates than the Clinton campaign. The latest tally from Fox: Obama 275, Clinton 272.

ABC News estimated late yesterday that Obama had claimed the superdelegate lead. Some liberal blogs are reporting the same and will be joined by a flurry of similar reporting as various media outlets come to the same conclusion as ABC and Fox.

The fat lady is singing. Does Hillary Clinton have her fingers in her ears?

Newsprism

What’s in a Name? How the US Media Support the Butchers of Burma

What’s in a name? In a word, everything. To call a person a name, or out of their name, is to deny them something essential, something sacrosanct.

The nation the media call “Myanmar” has gone by two names for centuries: Burma, and Myanmar. It was known to the UN and the West as the Union of Burma until 1989, a year after a military dictatorship seized power and renamed it the Union of Myanmar.

For twenty years that military dictatorship has run a repressive police state where mass murder, torture, and forced labor are routine. The current typhoon aid debacle shows how little regard the Burmese regime has for human life.

Most of the world has adopted “Myanmar,” but the UK and the US Department of State haven’t. Burmese groups opposed to the regime prefer “Burma” and consider the use of ”Myanmar” as acquiescing to the regime.

The media in the UK generally use the name “Burma” while the media in the US, both left and right—FoxNews is a notable exception—generally use “Myanmar.”

The British media exercise admirable discipline and decorum in denying the regime in Burma its legitimacy. The American media display ignorance and weakness by failing to do the same.

Newsprism

Hillary’s Last Gasp Dismisses Blacks, Disses Working-Class Whites

What was the intent when Hillary Clinton said this to USA Today on Wednesday:

I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on…Sen. Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and whites in both states who (have) not completed college (are) supporting me…There’s a pattern emerging here.

Pundits left and right inferred the obvious: Clinton was questioning the ability of a black candidate to win the White House without the white working-class vote. She presumes much. While most of the growing criticism of Clinton’s comments focuses on her dismissive attitude towards black voters, her presumptuous attitude towards working-class whites is equally damning. Both the dismissing and the dissing come from a deep-seated belief in racial and class-based stereotypes and a longstanding reliance on inherently divisive identity politics.

Peggy Noonan reports what Democratic insiders are saying off the record about Hillary Clinton:

She has unleashed the gates of hell. She’s saying, ‘He’s not one of us.’

And,

It’s not math anymore, it’s psychodrama. If she can’t have it, no one can have it. If she has to tear the party apart, she will.

Joe Conason wears kid gloves and pulls his punches writing for Salon today, but his jab still lands squarely on Clinton’s jaw:

She violated the rhetorical rules, no doubt by mistake. It was her offhand reference to ‘working, hard-working Americans, white Americans’ that raises the specter of old Dixie demagogues like Wallace and Lester Maddox. Was she dog-whistling to the voters of Kentucky and West Virginia?

In The Washington Post today, Eugene Robinson tells the unvarnished truth:

Here’s what she’s really saying to party leaders: There’s no way that white people are going to vote for the black guy. Come November, you’ll be sorry.

And the upshot, according to Robinson:

Assuming that Obama is the eventual nominee, he will have some work to do in reuniting the party. But there’s no reason to think he won’t succeed — unless Clinton drives a wedge between important elements of the party’s historical coalition.

The bottom line is that Hillary Clinton has finally found a formula that can defeat Barack Obama, namely, exploiting deep psychological divisions between races and classes. The problem for Clinton is that, as Charles Krauthammer lucidly explains, she found the formula too late.

Why, then, does she persist in pursuing a strategy that can only divide her party and weaken its nominee?

Isn’t that Rush Limbaugh’s job?

Newsprism

Limbaugh Picks the Scab of Race

In the latest salvo from his “Operation Chaos,” Rush Limbaugh insisted today that Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee for one reason and one reason only: because he’s black.

Limbaugh left no wiggle room in his assertion that Obama’s main qualification is his “skin color,” claiming that white guilt over past racism compelled the Democrats to nominate their first viable black candidate.

The strategery behind Rush’s rhetoric is clear: cast Obama as the “black affirmative action candidate” in order to maximize the anti-black vote in November. In effect, Limbaugh is calling on whites in both parties to vote against Obama for the very reason Limbaugh presumes the Democrats nominated Obama—because he’s black.

Limbaugh is practicing classic reactionary politics, justifying racism by invoking reverse racism.

As Obama tries to transcend what he calls ”racial resentments,” Limbaugh exacerbates and exploits those resentments. One tries to heal a national wound, the other picks at the scab.

Newsprism

Immediate Election Results Direct from Indiana and North Carolina

Below are the results of the primaries in Indiana and North Carolina as reported by their Secretaries of State.

Indiana usually announces results quickly; North Carolina allows you to follow results county-by-county.

Indiana Presidential Primary Results

North Carolina Presidential Primary Results

Newsprism

Darkened Roots—The Real Meaning of Reverend Wright for Barack Obama

Forget Jeremiah Wright, the man. What does Jeremiah Wright, the icon or persona created in the media based on that man, really, really mean?

The reason the Wright story, or rather, the persona, resonated so loudly in the media is that it taps into two deeply emotional divisions simultaneously, one racial, the other political.

Wright isn’t just black, he identifies himself as black and, more to the point, fundamentally separates himself from the dominant white culture. He’s a black nationalist, a Christian version of Farrakhan who rejects America in favor of a radical racial vision of “nation.”

His nation is not ours—that’s at the root of black nationalism, and it strikes the American people as something utterly alien and antagonistic and irreconcilable, like communism or anarchism, or the Marxist liberation theology that underpins Reverend Wright’s philosophy. It’s a threat to the very center, the very core, of American society, a threat to its moral authority.

But the threat is also a racial one, which is why having the radical, black, and radically black persona of Jeremiah Wright associated with Obama has damaged his candidacy so badly. Wright, the black Marxist, was once described as Obama’s spiritual mentor; people are left to wonder if one’s spirituality can be so glibly divorced from one’s political philosophy, and, once again, why Obama doesn’t wear a neon flag pin.

What’s more interesting than this darkening of Obama’s roots is the fact that it was not orchestrated by Clinton or McCain so much as imposed on the nation by a two-week obsession with Wright in the mainstream media, especially the content-starved cable news networks. Nor was it the conservative FoxNews that ran this story into the ground so much as the liberal MSNBC and, to a lesser degree, the liberal CNN.

It was as if the liberal media that anointed Obama were having second thoughts. If even they can have second thoughts about Obama, who can guess the depth of suspicion he evokes among the “less enlightened” white working class voter?

Newsprism

Never Mind the 50 Most Influential Pundits—Here Are 10 of the Best

After the success of its “Top 100 Liberals” and “Top 100 Conservatives,” the UK’s Telegraph has now unveiled its “Top 50 Political Pundits.” All three lists have had many in the media buzzing (like flies around a fresh, steaming cow patty.)

Before you check the lists out, a warning: they’re broken down into mini-lists of 10 or 20, so that to peruse them all, you’ll wind up clicking on 17 separate web pages—a cynical ploy aimed at maximizing the Telegraph’s web traffic to drive up advertising rates.

So never mind the Telegraph’s gimmicky lists, which confuse popularity with influence. Influence is a poor measure in the first place, especially when the news media have become more oriented towards entertainment than analysis. By what criteria are comics like Bill Maher, Keith Olbermann and Rush Limbaugh, or a superficial confrontationalist like Hack Hannity, or Glenn Beck, considered alongside the best journalists and political pundits of our time?

For what it’s worth, here are Newsprism’s Ten of the Best Political Pundits in America, all on the same page and commercialism free:

10. Michael Kinsley—while he occasionally veers off into liberal la-la land, Kinsley is thoughtful, lucid, and incisive. He’s the most reasonable voice from the far left, idealistic yet practical in a Pat Moynihan sort of way.

9. Charles Krauthammer—a solid bedrock conservative with unmatched acumen in foreign policy, Krauthammer’s analysis of the Middle East is spot-on. He’s as hard-nosed as Bush is hard-headed, staunchly nationalistic without succombing to the naive idealism of the neocons.

8.  Christopher Hitchens—an exceptional writer, Hitchens is also stubbornly independent. He defies categorization in an era marked by polarization; he’s loyal only to his own judgment, never taking sides or pulling his punches, lefts or rights.

7. Dick Morris—he’s as sleazy as the Clintons, and as brilliant, a Karl Rove without the charm (or loyalty.) His cynicism is matched by his insightfulness. A mean streak and his hatred for his former employers make him fun to follow.

6. David Brooks—while the market rewards extremism, especially on the right, Brooks is a moderate conservative devoted to what’s best for the country rather than winning an argument. Brooks is highly intelligent and knowledgeable, and his columns range across critical social and political issues.

5. Frank Rich—a writer on par with Hitchens, Rich anchors the New York Times opinion pages and has the ear of journalists left and right. His background as a critic of culture adds depth and dimension to his political analysis.

4. Karl Rove—the man got George Bush elected. Twice. George Bush. He’s been demonized by the left and stained by his association with the policies of his most famous client, but Rove understands American politics as well as anyone. He’s been outthinking the pack for nearly thirty years.

3. Peggy Noonan—both the woman and her writing are graceful and wise. Never pretentious, she has a way of making profound points effortlessly. Her wit is elegant, simple but never simplistic. Noonan may seem as soft as a feather, but that feather cuts like a scalpel. Her criticisms of George Bush, for example, go right to the heart of a presidency with no moral or philosophical foundation.

2. Pat Buchanan—with the best grasp of history in the business, Buchanan puts contemporary issues into a sweeping historical context. His perspective spans the breadth of Western civilization in an era whose memory barely reaches beyond the 24-hour news cycle. To “get” Buchanan, you should read his books and columns; his appearances on MSNBC don’t do him justice.

1. George Will—nobody connects the dots like Will. His commentary reflects attention to the highest principles while at the same time being grounded firmly in contemporary American culture and history. Will compares favorably with William F. Buckley and Walter Lippmann. His wit isn’t dry, it’s arid, a droll sarcasm befitting his bemusement at our increasingly uncivil society. A collection of his columns like The Leveling Wind transcends punditry; he’s a philosopher who happens to write columns.

Newsprism

Looking for the Most Embarrassing Moment in Presidential History? Mission Accomplished!

Like Babe Ruth’s home run record, Bill Clinton’s “shot heard ’round the world” looked certain to remain the Most Embarrassing Moment in Presidential History for a long, long time. Then came George W. Bush.

Five years ago today, Bush, codpiece and all, landed a fighter jet onboard the USS Abraham Lincoln and declared victory in Iraq. Not only was his declaration premature, he made it beneath an enormous banner reading, “Mission Accomplished.”

Like Clinton’s moment of infamy, Bush’s was truly revealing. If Clinton is an egomanaical self-absorbed sex addict with the morals of a (one-eyed trouser) snake, Bush is a deeply insecure arrested adolescent who’s used the US military as a prop for his own self-aggrandizement. The very idea of using fighter jets, an aircraft carrier, and an entire crew of sailors as backdrops in a swaggering draft dodger’s PR stunt is as pathetic as it is ludicrous.

Just as Clinton denied his boner, saying “I did not have sexual relations with that woman” while he wagged his finger at the nation, Bush now denies the “Mission Accomplished” banner referred to the war in Iraq. The Bush administration claims the banner referred to the mission of the USS Lincoln itself; White House spokesperson Dana Perino continued that farce yesterday, saying

President Bush is well aware that the banner should have been much more specific and said ‘mission accomplished’ for these sailors who are on this ship on their mission.

A banner with those words on it would have been as long as a Babe Ruth homerun.

Sometimes it’s the biggest egos, and sometimes the smallest, that require the most stroking.

Newsprism

Telegoguery—Bill O’Reilly and Hack Hannity Pass Judgment, Fail Test

Televangelists Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Bakker demonstrated how Christianity can’t be forced into the “logic” of commercial broadcasting without being perverted in the process.

Telegogues Bill O’Reilly and Sean “Hack” Hannity—the Swaggart and Bakker of pop culture conservatism—demonstrate how conservatism can’t be forced into that “logic” without being perverted, either.

Both O’Reilly and Hannity have roundly condemned Barack Obama for remaining a member of Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ despite the anti-American ravings of its former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, from the pulpit. Obama should have left his church of twenty years, they say, because Jeremiah Wright is too radical.

Would O’Reilly and Hannity, both of whom are Catholics, agree that Wright’s rants pale in comparison to the sexual molestation of thousands of children in the Catholic Church? Since when is criticizing America more deserving of censure and apostasy than serial child molestation?

Besides, have O’Reilly and Hannity heard of the scathing condemnations of American culture and media made by Pope Benedict and Pope John Paul II?

What O’Reilly and Hannity are completely ignorant of is that Liberation Theology, the Marxist doctrine Wright was advocating when he cursed America, was developed in and disseminated from the Catholic Church. Exactly what Reverend Wright was preaching, though repudiated by John Paul II, has been preached in Catholic churches for thirty-five years.

Which do these telegogues worship first—the cross, the flag, or the Neilson ratings? If the cross, then by their own logic they should probably renounce and leave the Catholic Church (which would, of course, be absurd.) If the flag, they should temper their demogoguery and be less divisive. If the Neilson ratings, they should keep doing exactly what they’ve been doing.

Wright addressed O’Reilly and Hannity’s perverse conflation of politics and religion during an April 12 eulogy for a friend (yet another example of his narcissism and lack of boundaries) when he criticized their

jingoistic, chauvinistic ‘you’re either with us or against us’ demonizing kind of faith…O’Reilly will never get that. Sean Hannity’s stupid fantasy will keep him forever stuck on stupid when it comes to comprehending how you can love a brother who does not believe what you believe.

O’Reilly and Hannity quickly replied to Wright, as the “logic” of commercialism demands, capitalizing on a rift in the church in a way no genuinely catholic Christian would. It’s one thing to judge the words of a man, another to judge the man himself, and something else altogether to judge an entire denomination.

Wright, O’Reilly, and Hannity are three hypocritical, self-aggrandizing egomaniacs caught between the perverse logic of commercialism and the straightjacket of theological and ideological rigidity. They deserve each other.

American conservatism and a truly catholic (as in “universal”) church deserve better.

Newsprism

Here’s the Random House dictionary’s definition of catholic (small “c”): 1. broad or wide-ranging in tastes, interests, or the like; having sympathies with all; broad-minded; liberal. 2. universal in extent; involving all; of interest to all. 3. pertaining to the whole Christian body or church.