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

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

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.

Summer Gas Tax Holiday is a Holiday from Reason

On the issue of suspending federal gas taxes over the summer, Barack Obama is the only “conservative” in the presidential race.

John McCain first proposed the tax holiday but didn’t specify how he’d pay for it. That was some pretty transparent pandering (let’s call it translucent) coming from an alleged fiscal conservative.

Hillary Clinton then began advocating the same tax holiday and added that she’d pay for it by taxing the windfall profits of the oil companies. Vintage Clinton; she panders transparently while acting fiscally conservative.

Barack Obama says the tax holiday isn’t necessary or even useful. Considering the fiscal pickle we’re in, his position is wise. If nothing else, Obama knows how to create the appearance of a new politics.

Based on average driving, most Americans would receive a benefit of about $30 over the summer, and that’s assuming that every penny of the tax will wind up in consumers’ pockets. It won’t.

How many Americans would sell their vote to a pandering politician  less than $30? Clinton and McCain intend to find out.

Newsprism

New Twist on an Old Joke: What Do You Call a Liberal Who’s Been Mugged?

The old joke goes like this: What do you call a liberal who’s been mugged?

A conservative.

After seven years of big-spending government and eroding civil liberties under allegedly conservative Republicans, the joke needs an update: What do you call a conservative who’s been mugged by government?

A libertarian.

Independent voters tend to decide national elections, and the largest bloc of independents are libertarian in outlook: fiscally conservative and socially liberal, in effect straddling the two major parties—which leaves them vulnerable to getting kicked in the crotch no matter whom they vote for.

This country was founded on libertarian principles—limited government, property rights, civil liberties, individual responsibility—that have been significantly eroded under both Democratic and Republican administrations. The designers of our democracy wouldn’t recognize what’s become of their experiment today; somehow a design intended to limit government has been twisted into a government with no intention of limiting its designs.

Up until the turn of the millenium, it was Democrats who considered the Constitution a “quaint document.” Now the Republican Party has betrayed its most fundamental animating principle. It is no longer a conservative party.

PJ O’Rourke puts it like this: “It’s going to be hard to do a worse job running America than the Republicans have, but if anybody can do it, it’s the Democrats.”

With a socialist Hillary Clinton or a very liberal Barack Obama set to face off against a big government Republican like John McCain, McCain would seem to be the lesser of two evils. Maybe the late great Molly Ivans had it right: for the third presidential election in a row, we’re faced with “the evil of two lessers.” The only genuine libertarian in the race is Ron Paul, and he’s way too principled, too shrill, too rough around the edges, and too ugly to win the American Idol contest we call a presidential election.

At the end of the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin was asked what kind of nation had been created. His answer: “A republic, if you can keep it.”

Newsprism

Obama Finally Condemns Racist Rants of Reverend Wright

Under mounting pressure, Barack Obama today “clearly and unequivocally denounc(ed)” the colorful rants of Jeremiah Wright at the National Press Club yesterday (video). Obama made the statements at a press conference in North Carolina, saying he was “outraged and saddened” by Wright’s behavior. CNN, MSNBC, and FoxNews all ran the press conference live.

Obama made clear that the relationship between the two men has been significantly damaged, saying it will “never be the same” and that the two hadn’t talked lately. Obama said yesterday’s performance left him “appalled,” “outraged,” and ”angry” and contradicted “everything I’ve done in my life.”

In particular, Obama called Wright’s statement that the government spread the AIDS virus to harm blacks “ridiculous” and questioned Wright’s praise of Louis Farrakhan.

Obama also said that Wright has been enjoying being “center stage,” suggesting a motive for the increasingly unbalanced and provocative remarks of the Reverend. Many observers are convinced that Wright is purposefully undermining Obama’s campaign.

Wright’s behavior has deteriorated into self-absorbed clowning lately, and he’s been more openly racist in his comments about whites and more openly radical in his conspiratorial condemnations of America.

What Wright will do now that the gloves are off is anybody’s guess. One thing is certain: the media will give it more coverage than it deserves.

Newsprism

Ask Not What Your Country Can Do for You—Ask What Your Press Agent Can Do for You

Barack Obama’s now infamous pastor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, is milking his fifteen-minute flash of fame for all it’s worth. This weekend he spoke with Bill Moyers in a televised interview, delivered a televised sermon in Dallas, gave a televised speech to the NAACP, and this morning he’s speaking (you guessed it—televised!) to the National Press Club.

The Reverend understands the mass media marketplace at least as well as he understands racial division. Controversy sells. Give the media controversy, and you can expect significant media coverage. If that controversy is timely, so much the better, and if it fits into the ideological template of the journalistic pack, you’re as good as gold.

No issue generates as much controversy in the US as race. Liberals in the media love to shine a spotlight on racism, real or imagined, in order to bask in the afterglow of their moral superiority. Conservatives in the media love to shine a spotlight on reverse racism, real or imagined, in order to further their political agenda.

 During his speech to the NAACP on Sunday, Reverend Wright invoked John Kennedy’s famous line, “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country” and mocked JFK’s pronunciation of “ahsk.” The idea was to “ahsk” why it’s okay for JFK to pronounce a word so oddly, but not for black children to pronounce it, “aks.” That’s a valid, if utterly petty, point.

What should be clear to all is that Wright is no longer furthering a philosophy. He’s furthering his career; a book deal is surely in the works. Mocking a liberal icon like Kennedy is straight out of the playbook of Ann Coulter, who says outrageous things just to keep herself in the media spotlight. A similar dynamic drives Britney Spears and Paris Hilton to do outrageous things. (Paris’s favorite fashion accessory, her chihuahua Tinkerbell, actually had a book published. Ka-ching!)

Give the media something to cover, no matter how trivial, perverse, or cynically self-serving, and they will. Give the publishing industry a low-risk title, and they’ll publish it. With cable news, talk radio, and the Internet lowering editorial standards, and with the demands of a 24-hour news cycle, a critical institution in our society has been dragged down into the cultural gutter alongside Jerry Springer and Geraldo Rivera.

Jeremiah Wright may have some important ideas to contribute to our national discourse. He holds two master’s degrees and a doctorate, and he served this country in the Marine Corps and the Navy. The cartoon version of the Reverend that’s being bandied about in the media doesn’t do him justice.

The fact that he’s so hard at work capitalizing on that cartoon doesn’t do the rest of us justice.

Newsprism

Hillary Clinton and Monty Python’s Black Knight

In Monty Python and the Holy Grail, the Black Knight fights King Arthur to prevent him from crossing a small bridge. After having an arm cut off by the King, the Knight insists, “‘Tis but a scratch” and refuses to concede. After the other arm is cut off, the Black Knight still refuses to concede, insisting it’s “just a flesh wound.” The unarmed knight then loses both legs, at which point he finally agrees to “call it a draw.”

With virtually no chance of catching Barack Obama in either delegates or the popular vote, Hillary Clinton continues to insist on dragging the Democratic Party through a bloody and needless fight to the convention in August. She needs to win around 80% of the remaining popular vote, for example, but is down by 8% in the latest Gallup tracking poll.

Disarmed and without a leg to stand on, Clinton is now asking the question, “Why can’t (Obama) close the deal?“

The answer is simple: because a black knight with no chance of victory is blocking his way.

Newsprism

Bill Clinton Denies Saying What He Said…On Tape

Asked about his comments during the South Carolina primary comparing Barack Obama’s performance there with Jesse Jackson’s—a comment many took as injecting race into the contest between Obama and Hillary Clinton—Bill Clinton told WHYY 91FM’s Susan Phillips (audio),

I think that (the Obama campaign) played the race card on me. We now know, from memos from the campaign that they planned to do it along.

Asked about the comment today, a snippy and defensive Clinton denied saying what he said (video.) The former president also dodged a question about the alleged memos he denied referring to. (Here’s the whole story from ABC News.)

Later in the WHYY interview, Clinton said his South Carolina comments were “used out of context and twisted for political purposes by the Obama campaign.” Then, off mic, using his genuine voice and vocabulary, he adds, “I don’t think I should take any shit from anybody on that, do you?”

This is vintage Bill Clinton—cynically spinning and twisting beneath that slick, golly-gee persona of his, then lying and denying about it.

Is Bill Clinton a serial liar? It depends on where your definition of “lies” lies.

Newsprism

Those Arkansaw Bumkins, or, A Gremlin In His Goober (satire)

 

Presidential Candidates Appear on Professional Wrestling Program

It’s basically theatre disguised as a contest. It highlights confrontation and image at the expense of competition and substance.

Flashy graphics and longwinded speeches are prevalent. Spontaneity is scripted and authenticity is packaged. Nothing is quite what it appears to be.

Few take it seriously, but most follow it to one degree or another. Many get hurt, and a few get rich.

That’s right—it’s presidential politics.

Tonight, all three presidential candidates will appear on the World Wrestling Entertainment’s Raw program beginning at 8pm EST. Watch previews of their taped segments here, and watch an animated Hillary and Barack get ready to rumble here.

Newsprism’s question: is professional wrestling demeaning to the presidential campaign, or vice-versa

Update: All three candidates looked completely out of their element on Raw tonight, competing to see how many lame wrestling puns and catch phrases they could fit into their minute-long segments. It was transparent, condescending, and canned pandering to an audience they don’t understand or respect. Newsprism wonders if any of the three knows that Abraham Lincoln was a professional wrestler and a genuine man of the people, or that they were the butts of the joke tonight?

Newsprism

 

The Perfect Vice President for Either Party: Sam Nunn of Georgia

Former Senator and conservative Democrat Sam Nunn today endorsed Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination, eliciting speculation that he could be on Obama’s short list of potential runningmates.

Newsprism has long considered Nunn, a four-term Senator and former Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and an expert on weapons of mass destruction, among the most credible candidates for the presidency—an office he’s shown little if any interest in.

As Obama’s runningmate, Nunn would shore up the Democrats’ foreign policy credentials substantially and move the ticket towards the center, possibly even putting some states in the otherwise solidly red South in play.

Mr. Nunn would make an equally strong runningmate for John McCain. McCain’s main weakness is the perception that he would continue the utterly failed foreign policy of George Bush, a foreign policy Nunn has challenged with great depth and perspective. Nunn would also pull the Republican ticket towards the center, putting any number of blue states in play.

Nunn  hopes for a sea change in US foreign policy and for political reconciliation domestically. Accepting a spot on either ticket would go a long way towards accomplishing both objectives.

Update: Nunn just told MSNBC that he’s happy in the private sector and not considering a return to public office.

Update: Along with Nunn, former Senator David Boren and former Clinton cabinet member Robert Reich have also endorsed Barack Obama today.

Newsprism

Hillary Clinton Uses Wrong ‘Kitchen’ Metaphor

At a campaign rally in Pennsylvania today, Hillary Clinton responded to Barack Obama’s criticism of the ABC News debate Wednesday night, saying, “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen (video).” She added, “I’m very comfortable in the kitchen.”

This seems an odd metaphor for a woman who once belittled housewives for “bak(ing) cookies and hav(ing) teas (transcript).“

The apt metaphor for the lingering Mrs. Clinton: too many cooks spoil the broth.

More to the point, Obama’s crticism wasn’t about the “heat” of the questions  the moderators, Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolous, asked him—it was about their shallowness, a criticism Newsprism agrees with 100%.

Newsprism

Obama Attacked for Using the “B” Word

Senator Barack Obama has been condemned by both Hillary Clinton and John McCain for his use of the adjective “bitter” in the following quote from a private fundraiser last Sunday in San Francisco:

You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations

While grammatically correct, the statement appears to condescend to the decisive working class voter in the upcoming Indiana, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia primaries.

Clinton responsed in a campaign appearance yesterday at Drexel University in Philadelphia:

It’s being reported that my opponent said that the people of Pennsylvania who faced hard times are bitter; well, that’s not my experience. Pennsylvanians don’t need a president who looks down on them; they need a president who stands up for them, who fights for them, who works hard for your futures, your jobs, your families

McCain responded through campaign operatives. McCain advisor Steve Schmidt said:

It shows an elitism and condescension toward hard-working Americans that is nothing short of breathtaking. It is hard to imagine someone running for president who is more out of touch with average Americans.

McCain advisor Tucker Bounds said:

Instead of apologizing to small town Americans for dismissing their values, Barack Obama arrogantly tried to spin his way out of his outrageous San Francisco remarks. You can’t be more out of touch than that.

The repetition of “more out of touch” in both statements demonstrates the level of coordination within the McCain camp as it seeks to maximize the damage to Obama.

Newsprism wonders about the repetition of “instead of apologizing (to) small town America” in both the McCain camp’s statement above and this one from Clinton spokesman Phil Singer:

Instead of apologizing for offending small town America, Senator Obama chose to repeat and embrace the comments he made earlier this week … Americans are tired of a President who looks down on them, they want a President who will stand up for them for a change.

The timing of the publication of the audio at Hollywood leftist news and gossip site The Huffington Post is also intriguing. Why was the audio held so long before being released Friday morning?

Who would stand to gain the most from damaging Obama in working-class towns and neighborhoods by painting him as an elitist? The incident is playing out against a backdrop in which Obama has consolidated an eight to ten point lead over Clinton and has inched three points ahead of McCain in the latest Gallup polls.

The audio also highlights the degree to which American elections increasingly take place in the production and manipulation of audio and video recordings, which can be rapidly spread across the country online and on cable news.

Thoughtful reflection on the policies and philosophies of the candidates can best be discerned by reading their words and listening to entire speeches, not by cherrypicking their most exploitable moments caught on tape.

Parsing adjectives has no place in a presidential election, and we need a real democracy based in ideas, not a virtual one based in the most shallow media.

Newsprism

Bush Announces Exit Strategy, Timetable for Withdrawal

In a speech today at the White House (transcript), a relatively sombre and downcast President Bush (video) announced his exit strategy and timetable for withdrawal from Washington, DC: on January 20, 2009, at precisely noon, Mr. Bush will leave office barring unforeseen circumstances.

At that time, a new president—if the Petraeus/Crocker hearings were any indication, Barack Obama—will inherit the war in Iraq, which Mr. Bush said is “not endless.”

“Not endless” is about as optimistic as the president could be. His hopes for a positive conclusion to the war were sketched out using “if” and ”would” rather than “when” and ”will,” an indication that he isn’t able to realistically predict, or even define, victory:

if we succeed in Iraq, after all that al-Qaida and Iran have invested there, it’d be a historic blow to the global terrorist movement and a severe setback for Iran. It would demonstrate to a watching world that mainstream Arabs reject the ideology of al-Qaida and mainstream Shia reject the ideology of Iran’s radical regime. It would give America a new partner with a growing economy and a democratic political system in which Sunnis and Shia and Kurds all work together for the good of their country.

The fact that after all the US has invested in Iraq the situation there is increasingly untenable is already being touted as a victory for the insurgents and jihadists who continue to tie up our armed forces. A “watching world” has seen terrorist attacks increasing across the globe, due in part to outrage over the arrogance of launching an unnecessary, unjustified pre-emptive war against an already desperate and isolated Iraq. As for transforming Iraq into a prosperous, democratic, and unified ally, one wonders if the happy Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds will all be riding unicorns across rainbows to fields of cotton candy.

On the other hand, the president admitted that failure in Iraq would bring about dire consequences:

If we fail there, al-Qaida would claim a propaganda victory of colossal proportions and they could gain safe havens in Iraq from which to attack the United States, our friends and our allies. Iran would work to fill the vacuum in Iraq…. This would diminish our nation’s standing in the world and lead to massive humanitarian casualties and increase the threat of another terrorist attack on our homeland.

The “propaganda victory” Mr. Bush refers to has already been accomplised by al Qaeda and the Sunni and Shiite insurgents, who’ve fought the world’s only remaining superpower to a draw using geurrilla tactics and improvised weapons and strategies. Iran has already been made the dominant force in the region, and our standing in the world, both economic and moral, declines daily. As for “massive humanitarian casualties,” one wonders what the president considers the nearly 100,000 dead, the two to four million displaced, the ethnic cleansing, and the decimation of Iraq’s already fragile economy—not to mention the cost in American dead and wounded—to be.

The sole silver lining in Bush’s remarks was directed at soldiers deployed to Iraq after August 1, who will serve the traditional 12-month stint rather than the current 15-month stint that has strained our military to the breaking point. This change in policy, however, hints at the damage the Iraq quagmire has done to the military, which the army openly acknowledges and which has left us increasingly vulnerable.

President Bush essentially slathered lipstick on the proverbial pig this morning. Even the centrist Christian Science Monitor characterized the speech as a defeatest hand-off to the next president, who will have to re-define “victory” and come up with a plan for a responsible withdrawal.

The president seems almost delusional in his stubborn refusal to admit what an astronomical miscalculation he made in launching an invasion of Iraq.

All that was missing today in the White House’s Cross Hall was another banner reading, “Mission Accomplished.”

Newsprism

Delegate Math Doesn’t Add Up for Clinton

Barack Obama has opened a nine-point national lead over Hillary Clinton in Gallup’s daily tracking poll, 52-43%. Rasmussen has Obama ahead by 11, 51-40%.

In March, Obama raised $40 million to Clinton’s $20 million.

Meanwhile, the Gallup poll shows Obama leads by two over John McCain, who is tied with Clinton. McCain raised $15 million in March.

In North Carolina, Obama leads Clinton by 23 points; in Pennsylvania, some polls show Obama gaining on Clinton—others show a dead heat; in Oregon, Obama leads Clinton by 10 points; In Indiana, Clinton leads Obama by nine.

Considering that Clinton needs to virtually sweep the remaining primaries to defeat Obama, the likelihood of her winning the Democratic nomination has shrunk from slim to none.

Clinton’s only chance now appears to be a broad movement of superdelegates in her direction, but even that seems less and less likely as superdelegates have been swinging to Obama and backpeddling on their endorsements of Clinton.

Math doesn’t lie; Clinton’s insistence on staying in the race just doesn’t add up.

Newsprism

Oink, Oink! Congress Pigs Out on Pork Barrel Spending

The latest annual Pig Book, which tallies up the total amount of pork-barrel spending by Congress, came out today. The results: Congress added 11,600 special projects called “earmarks” to bills last year, costing the taxpayers $17,200,000,000.

Among the programs documented by the Pig Book’s publishers, Citizens Against Government Waste:

$211,509 for olive fruit fly research to be performed not in the USA, but in Paris, France.

$1,950,000 for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service … sponsored by none other than Charles B. Rangel.

$98,000 for a walking tour of Boydton, Virginia … a town of 474 covering less than one square mile that can all be seen from one spot.

$148,950 for a Sheep Institute in Montana and $188,000 for a Lobster Institute in Maine. What? No Pig Institute in Washington, DC?

$196,000 to renovate the historic post office in Las Vegas … because what better way is there to spend your time in dull, boring Vegas than marvelling at the Post Office?

The pork continues to flow from Congress despite ethics reforms and earmark reforms instituted by the new Democratic majority. Last year was the second porkiest since 1991, when CAGW first published the Pig Book. The total cost of special projects in those 18 years exceeds $271,000,000.

The top three porkers in Congress are three Republicans on the Senate Appropriations Committee: Thad Cochran, Ted Stevens, and Richard Shelby.

As for the three remaining candidates in the race for the White House, there are no surprises. Hillary Clinton leads the way with 281 earmarks costing $296,200,000. Barack Obama finds himself in the middle with 53 earmarks costing $97,400,000.

And John McCain? Zero earmarks costing $0.00.

Mr. and Ms. American taxpayer, here’s the message from your representatives in Congress: turn around, bend over, and squeal like a pig.

Who says you can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s earmark?

Newsprism

Hillary’s Not Merely Dead, She’s Really Most Sincerely Dead

To turn Mark Twain’s line on its head, reports of the life of the Hillary Clinton campaign have been greatly exaggerated.

Slate.com has created a Hillary Deathwatch page that calls her campaign “as good as dead” while gauging her chances of winning the Democratic nomination at 12%. Politico.com pegs Clinton’s odds at “virtually no chance of winning” while quoting a Clinton official as saying her chances are 1 in 10.

David Brooks offers the more realistic figure of 5% and asks the salient question: ”Why does she go on like this?” His answer:

Clinton’s long rear-guard action is the logical extension of her relentlessly political life. For nearly 20 years, she has been encased in the apparatus of political celebrity… No wonder the Clinton campaign feels impersonal. It’s like a machine for the production of politics. It plows ahead from event to event following its own iron logic. The only question is whether Clinton herself can step outside the apparatus long enough to turn it off and withdraw voluntarily or whether she will force the rest of her party to intervene and jam the gears. If she does the former, she would surprise everybody with a display of self-sacrifice. Her campaign would cruise along at a lower register until North Carolina, then use that as an occasion to withdraw. If she does not, she would soldier on doggedly, taking down as many allies as necessary.

A look at the most recent Democratic primary Gallup polls shows Obama pulling away from Clinton nationally with a lead of eight percent. Meanwhile, in Gallup’s general election polling, Clinton’s two point lead over McCain has been reversed since the Jeremiah Wright tapes surfaced just over two weeks ago. McCain now leads Clinton by two. More to the point, Obama’s two point lead over McCain has also been reversed, due at least in part to Clinton. McCain now leads Obama by one.

Pressure on Clinton to withdraw from the race is growing and is coming from higher and higher up in the Democratic Party hierarchy.

Newsprism first predicted an Obama victory on February 13 and has been assuming a Clinton defeat since February 25.

With apologies to the Coroner of Munchkinland for stealing his lines, and to the Wicked Witch of the West for the comparison, Mrs. Clinton “isn’t only merely dead, she’s really most sincerely dead.”

Newsprism

Those Arkansaw Bumkins or, A Gremlin In His Goober

100 Years Is a) The Length of the Campaign, b) McCain’s Age, or c) A Moral Obligation

It sure feels like this presidential campaign has been going on for a century, and according to the late night comedians, John McCain was 100 when he gave his first speech in front of the Tower of Babel. 

But the answer, despite what Democrats want to make of a single sound bite, is c., a moral obligation. We have a moral obligation to insure that Iraq returns to its pre-invasion stability and stays there. If that means maintaining an American military presence there for 100 years, as McCain insists (video,) so be it.

When we invaded, we threw Iraq into chaos. If we leave prematurely, as both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have promised to do, Iraq could descend into a Cambodian-style bloodbath, and some of that blood would be on our hands.

A bill sponsored by Obama early last year would have had all US combat brigades out of Iraq by this coming Monday, March 31. In a speech this week, Hillary Clinton mischaracterized McCain’s “100 year” quip four times and said, “my plan is … to remove one to two brigades a month (text.)”

Neither Obama nor Clinton seems to understand the realities on the ground in Iraq; neither seems willing to defy the anti-war sentiments that predominate in the Democratic Party.

To leave Iraq in its current condition, or in any condition we can realistically expect to see in the foreseeable future, would not only be profoundly immoral, but would put us a greater risk of terrorist attack. And at greater risk of skyrocketing oil prices. And at greater risk of a Middle East meltdown. And at greater risk of metastasizing global jihad.

You can oppose the launching and execution of a war and still acknowledge the moral obligations that that war entials.

Newsprism

Dueling Victims—Identity Politics Taken to Its (Il)logical Conclusion

In America today, is it worse to be black, or female? That’s the absurd question many in the Democratic Party and in the mainstream media are pondering.

The victim mentality that has sustained so much of liberal ideology over the last four decades has been starkly displayed of late after pack journalists swarmed around two ill-conceived and incendiary statements by Geraldine Ferraro and George McGovern, both of whom are Hillary Clinton supporters.

According to Ferraro,

If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is.

And according to McGovern,

I have a feeling that in this country where we’re at today in our thinking, it’s going to be harder to elect a woman than to elect a black man.

To (white) Clinton supporters, it’s better to be black than female. This is a question without an answer, of course, though we know two things for sure: 1.) discrimination of any kind is damaging to the health of both individual bodies and the body politic, and 2.) the roots of racism and sexism, while both run deep, are comparable at only the most shallow levels.

If only the media weren’t, like the academy and liberalism in general, still dominated by people with a stake in keeping racism and sexism alive in the national psyche, maybe more healing could be taking place. For Hillary Clinton and her operatives to be trotting out the ugly side of identity politics is shameful and damaging to their party and our nation. The only beneficiaries of this infighting are John McCain and the Republicans.

No matter how hard he tries, Barack Obama can’t rise above the issue of his blackness, which his blue-state Democratic rival has turned into red meat for yellow journalists.

Newsprism

Judas, Jesus, the Devil and a Blue Dress

Clinton operative James Carville reacted to former Clinton cabinet member Bill Richardson’s endorsement of Barack Obama with this Easter-season attack: on Good Friday, Carville called Richardson a “Judas.”

The comparison strikes many as both impolitic and sacriligious … but Carville not only refuses to back down, he’s reiterating the attack to every journalist he can find.

If Richardson is Judas, that would make the Clintons Jesus Christ. It would also mean that no Democrat can endorse Barack Obama without being profoundly disloyal and immoral. It would also mean that the race for the Democratic nomination—a race that Obama had locked up weeks ago—has descended well past the gutter and into a much lower, more fiery realm.

Is it coincidence that Carville looks so demonic? Or that the Clintons make up their morals to fit their ambitions?

And wasn’t there a song (here’s the Springsteen version) about the devil and a blue dress?

Newsprism

A Simple Question

In endorsing Barack Obama today, Bill Richardson offered this assessment of the Illinois Senator: “Your candidacy is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for our country, and you are a once-in-a-lifetime leader.”

The question isn’t whether Obama is ready for the presidency; the question is, is the presidency—is the nation—ready for Barack Obama?

In temperament, intelligence, judgment, and integrity, Obama stands head and shoulders above his competition. It’s  McCain’s experience, resolve, and independence, along with a certain aspect or cast of his, that make this a race.

Newsprism

The Best and Worst of Fox News

It’s rare that the shallow political posturing of Fox News’ morning personalities warrants a mention; morning happy-talk just isn’t taken that seriously. But this morning, Fox and Friends hosts Steve Doocy, Gretchen Carlson, and Brian Kilmeade were bluntly shamed and scolded on air after repeatedly criticizing Barack Obama for saying this:

The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity, but that she is a typical white person. If she sees somebody on the street that she doesn’t know (pause) there’s a reaction in her that doesn’t go away and it comes out in the wrong way.

The upshot of the Friends’ commentary was an oft-repeated canard that calling his own grandmother “a typical white person” was racist. Obama made the admittedly impolitic statement while defending himself against prior charges that another statement concerning his grandmother was racist:

I can no more disown (Reverand Jeremiah Wright) than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

Even Jesse Jackson once acknowledged that he felt fearful enough of being followed down the street by young black males that realizing he was being followed by whites instead was a relief. And who among us has never let slip a racial slur?

The sad fact is that many conservatives, including Pat Buchanan and some at National Review Online, are trying to dirty Obama through the mud of their own racism. No one should be deluded into thinking that America has transcended her racial divide, nor that that racial divide can be laid at the feet of a unifying figure like Obama.

The problem with Fox News isn’t its conservative bias. Diverse perspectives in American media should be welcomed, especially after many decades during which the liberal bias of the vast majority of news organizations put conservatism at a distinct disadvantage.

The problem with Fox News is its predominating superficiality, its reliance on beautiful women wearing heavy make-up and revealing clothing, or its reliance on contrived infotainment personas like Bill O’Reilly’s and Sean Hannity’s. No other network exploits the sex appeal of its female personalities quite like Fox News; it’s tellin