Predictions: The Obama Presidency + 2012

Obama Presidency Predictions

Obama's staff picks so far have been astonishingly Clinton-era; nary a new face. Clinton-ite, and pusher behind the NAFTA Free Trade Agreement that most people point to when they talk about Clinton's "centrist" policies, Rahm Emanuel, as previously mentioned, will be chief-of-staff. John Podesta, another rabid liberal partisan will be head of Obama's so called "Transition Project," which appears to be a way that Obama can lead before he's actually sworn in.

For the Cabinet, the odiously liberal HuffPo has a Dem-insider post about likely Cabinet picks.

Attorney General: The HuffPo says that former Bush AG Alberto Gonzales brought "controversy" to this post, but seems to have forgotten Janet Reno's bloody attack on religious nuts in the early nineties...ever heard of Waco? Arizona governor Janet Napolitano is reportedly in line for this post. Young, Black governor Deval Patrick is also being considered for this post in young, Black president Obama's cabinet.

Treasury Secretary: Tim Geithner, Chairman of the New York Federal Reserve, and a protege of Clinton-era TS Robert Rubin, is being considered, as well as another Clinton-era TS, the former president of Harvard, Larry Summers. Summers was fired from his (tenured) post at Harvard when he suggested that there may be inherent differences between men and women in the fields of science and engineering....Amazing. Both of these men are Clinton "centrists."

Secretary of Defense: Robert Gates, the current secretary, is probably going to stay for a while. After that, Colin Powell's name is being bandied around, but he's already served in the post under two presidents and has shown no interest. Richard Danzig, former Navy Secretary, is also being considered.

Secretary of State: The laughable John Kerry is reportedly angling hard for this job; other candidates are, surprisingly, a Republican; RINO Chuck Hagel of Nebraska; and three boring Obama policy advisors. Although, if Robert Gates is kept on as Defense Secretary, another high-ranking Republican cabinet secretary is unlikely. (Although, as Glenn Beck noted on Monday, Gates is not a registered Republican.)

Other posts:

Sec. of Agriculture: Former governor Tom Vilsack, of (you guessed it) Iowa--although he was a staunch supporter of Hillary Clinton (where is she in these discussions, by the way? Obama seems to have totally ignored her.) We Wisconsinites are much better at agriculture than the poor sappy Iowans, so may I humbly suggest to President Obama that you rid us of...err, I mean, appoint WI governor Jim Doyle to the job? Word around here is that Doyle would accept a post if it were offered to him, but it might lose the Wisconsin governorship to the Democrats.

Energy: Many people, from PA governor Ed Rendell to CA governor and Republican Ah-nold Schwarzanegger are being considered.

Education: Joel Klein or Caroline Kennedy.

Policy-wise, Obama seems to be following in Clinton's footsteps, with many old Clinton names and policies. He seems committed to ending the war in Iraq, and possibly Afghanistan as well, although he may renege on that promise if as president, he is made aware of the blow to US image it would be and the other reasons against pulling out. He would have to weigh whether upsetting the anti-war wing of the party with a phased withdrawal (like Bush's plan) would lose him more votes than the possible awful consequences to our image abroad, not to mention middle-eastern policy and politics and the possibility that emboldened terrorists would

Predictions for the 2012 Election

This all depends on Obama's presidency. Will he be Carter or Clinton? He is certainly angling to be the next Clinton, but if the economy heads even farther south, that would reflect badly on him as it did on Carter, and if he withdraws from Iraq and Afghanistan, there is a serious possibility of war in the Middle-East, possibly between Pakistan and Afghanistan, or Iran and Iraq (2.0). If Obama is a weak brand for re-election in 2012, the challenger is all the more important. If Obama seems strong or moderate, as Clinton was in '96, the LAST thing we want to do is nominate another Dole (like McCain would be then.)

Mitt Romney (who would be the first Mormon president) is already gearing up for 2012, and barring anything unexpected, he is the frontrunner: his strong economic experience would be a huge asset. Conservatives are likely to support Louisiana Republican success story Bobby Jindal, who would be the first Indian-American president, who has governed post-Katrina LA with grace and aplomb, or Sarah Palin. We will see in 2012 if Palin's image has been permanently dented by the McCain camp's mishandling of her: the whole "bulldog in lipstick" thing, I've heard, is very different than the image she cultivated as Alaska governor, and probably boiled up by the McCain people. If she put that behind her, she would be strong in 2012. If not, she would be a goof on the Dan Quayle scale. Mike Huckabee is not to be ruled out. All of these candidates seem good for 2012, just as none of them seemed particularly good for 2008. Ideally, I would pick Jindal-Huckabee, but they are so publically Christian that it might be hard. Romney-Palin could be worse, as could Romney-Huckabee or Huckabee-Romney. Romney-Jindal would be a strong ticket, but anything with Palin on the top might not fly.

Enjoy four years of the Obamaniac!

Will Hill Stay?

Barack Obama probably is now being called by respectable media outlets the presumptive nominee. He has surpassed the number of delegates needed, and it has been increasingly clear in the past months that he is the leader in this campaign. Now the question is: what will Hill do? She hasn't as yet conceded defeat, but most reports say she's angling for the VP spot, which Obama might just give her. Personal feelings between the aside, polls show that if Obama is the nominee, a substantial portion of HRC's hardliners won't vote for him. Depending on how much of that is dependent on racism or sexism, picking HRC as his VP would be a smart move--and bad for John McCain.

Was Barack Obama born in the United States? He says he was, in Hawaii, but the State of Hawaii refuses to release his birth certificate and is now no longer paying them any attention. It hasn't mattered up till now because, as a Senator, he is allowed to have been born outside this country, but as President, he can't. So, this is important. Chances are he is American-born, but this is a serious issue, and how much coverage of it have you seen in the We-love-you-B.-Hussein-Obama media? Zilch. Zero. Nada.

McCain's VP pick becomes all the more important if Hillary is Obama's Veep. Why? Because they would have a historic ticket. If I was McCain, I would choose someone young, preferably a woman or a minority. That seems a little cynical, but it's the way to win. Voters, starstruck by a black president and a female VP, would vote for Obama-Clinton on that alone.

Therefore, my two nominees:

Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska. The first female governor of Alaska is also a fairly Conservative, pro-life, pro-marriage female, who became the first person to give birth while a governor. She gave birth to her son Trig on April 18th of this year. She's a woman, she's conservative, and in a recent poll she beat out everyone except the Huck as possible VP picks.

Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana. Governor Jindal is thirty-six years old, and of Indian descent. He was, however, born in the United States, making him eligible to be Vice-President. He has bullied the reluctant and corrupt Louisiana legislature into passing sweeping ethics-reform bills in a state ravaged by Katrina and corruption. He's charming and personable, rather like a younger, Indian, Christian, pro-life Barack Obama.

So...You decide. Well, actually McCain does, but I'd like your input as well.

Summer!

For those of you who are as yet unaware of this beautiful new phenomenon, SUMMER is here. That's right, ladies and gentlemen. School. Is. Over. And I love it. The last weeks of May and the first weeks of June are really the most beautiful time here in Baldwin. After the cold and the mud, but before the oppressive, insect-ravaged heat. Early Fall, too, is beautiful, but in that season the glory of summer is declining, instead of growing as it is right now. This is my second official day of summer vacation, and I enjoyed it immensely, not least because we had the Renz over, and listened to some great muzak and played some great rounds of Halo 3 and Ghost Recon.

The political scene, my usual forte, has been abnormally quiet these last few days. Obama is now the presumptive nominee, but the CW is that Clinton won't bow out gracefully--her only reason to do so would be if she had a reasonable chance of becoming Obama's VP pick, which I and most pundits and Nancy Pelosi don't see as a real possibility--but will stick it to the bitter end, no matter what the cost to the Democrat's seemingly stellar chances in November.

Reading National Review on Monday, I found a rather profound statement regarding Obama's election by the establishment. If, or when, Obama becomes the nominee, he will be the only nominee from any party in the history of the United States to have lost California, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Michigan, and Texas--the biggest states in the Union, with the exception of their mutual home state and Obama's constituent state Illinois. When you think about it, that's rather stunning. Equally so are the several polls I've read indication that a substantial portion of Clinton's supporters will NOT vote for Obama. I think I remember 15%. That, too, is a staggering number, and could tip the balance in McCain's favor.

What else? Good question. I'm trying to think about ways to snazz up the blog. I think tonight or tomorrow I'm going to have a brainstorming session about topics, so look for more at Mosings in the future. Until then, my friends, live long and prosper.

HRC Slowly losing ground, End-of-the-year blues

First things first. Hillary Clinton scraped a two-point win in Indiana, but lost by a huge margin in North Carolina; the two states which held their primaries yesterday. This is probably the beginning of the end for the Clinton campaign: she's been a long-shot since Super Tuesday, but held on. This result was probably not the shut-out Obama was expecting, but does her already-faltering campaign a good deal of damage.

Robert Novak's Political Report said that we shouldn't be surprised if she drops our before the end of the primaries in June. I think he's underestimating the Clinton ambition; if I know her, she'll stay in as long as she has a mathematical chance--neither candidate can get the number of delegates needed for an outright win, so it could still get down to quibbling.

If Hillary sticks it to the convention, she does have a card up her sleeve: The Michigan and Florida primaries, which didn't actually count because of Democratic shenanigans, both went to her. We're talking about two of the largest states in the Union. With those delegates counted, she's considerably closer to Barack Obama. A contested convention would be a dream for Republicans, and make the odds much more even for McCain.

Besides that, the political scene has been quiet: no real scandals or even news since Eliot Spitzer.

I'm getting something I get every year: the blues. Every spring, it seems, I have melancholy periods. Tonight I had one because it was the last night of youth group. What a blessing that's been for me! It's a great group of people, and some of them are of course going off to college and other things. However, everything happens because God willed it, so I shouldn't really be melancholy. Life goes on, and it's my duty to show the Spirit in it. I really, really can't wait for finals and graduation to be over. School seems to be unraveling at the seams, yet the homework load is still oppressive. Now more than ever, I don't have the urge to do it. It pains me to admit it, but I did actually leave some assignments from Monday till the VERY last minute--and trust me, it showed. Why do I do that? Good question. My inborn procrastination, in my opinion my very worst fault, rears its ugly head again. I can't imagine becoming a respectable member of society with the almost fearful aversion I have to actually getting work done. Why, oh why, oh why? *Sigh*

How the Republican Party can win in 2008

Common knowledge has it that this year's elections, representative and presidential, are for the most part an easy win for the Democrats. This, presumably, you already know; if for no other reason than having read my earlier post, "Can the Dems Fumble the Ball?" So, here's a point-by-point analysis of the GOP's chances, and what it can do to win.

1) The Economy: I was perversely satisfied when polls showed that most voters believe the economy is the most important issue facing them this election, rather than what I would have expected: the war. The economy is taking a definite down-turn, and that's bad for all of us. This is an advantage for the liberals because a bad economic situation makes people yearn for New Deal-like government intervention. However, the refund-thing-check that many taxpayers will be getting this year is a good thing: it's putting more money back in the pocket of the consumer, rather than the government. This is a sure-fire, old-fashioned way to stimulate the economy, and will probably be popular. So, my analysis is that this issue could go either way, but still leans left. What that means is that voters who think the economy is the greatest concern will probably go Democratic.

2) The War: It was on everyone's minds in 2006, and the liberal media forecasted that it would be the deciding factor in 2008. That doesn't look like it will happen, but it's certainly a nearly-top priority. Many Americans see our presence in the Middle East as a greedy intrusion, only to safeguard our oil. Frankly, they might be right about the oil part. I mean, think about it. Darfur and North Korea and other places have more or equally tyrannical governments than Iraq or Afghanistan. However, we leave them pretty much alone. Why? Because, in my opinion, they don't have oil. Black gold. I don't see much wrong with this actually. We secured a needed resource and liberated two peoples in the process. I don't think that's a problem. It's as defensible as a nation invading its' corrupt, evil food-producing neighbor with two motives in mind, (1) liberate the people, and (2) safeguard our access to a vital resource. Which brings me back to my central view on the war: we can't lose, we can't leave, so we might as well win. Losing would end America as a world power. Leaving would abandon Iraq to the dogs--the very tyrants who had power before we invaded. Winning, however, would bring one more functioning democracy into the world, give us another ally in the middle east, and make quite certain that our oil supplies are not impeded. This, I think, should be clear to most people--even the voting ones--and thus although at first glance it seems like a cert for the Democrats, I think that we can convince voters of this view. Conclusion: This issue tends Right.

(3) Health Care: HillaryCare, the debacle that sounded the end of President Clinton's honeymoon back in 1994, has been resurrected by Hillary Clinton as one of her campaign promises. What is HillaryCare? Quite simply, it's a complete socialization of the health care system, making it a government program instead of a private sector enterprise. At first glance, that seems ideal. Something about health-care-for-profit does tickles a deep, Robin Hood bone in me, but I have to suppress it. The government would ruin health care like it has ruined public education, and like every other wealthy, industrialized nation has ruined health care. Our health care system is the best in the world, and getting better. Canada, for example, instituted socialized health care and now many citizens are calling for the old system. I won't go into it here, but for an in-depth analysis of the subject, I suggest David Gratzer's "The Cure." His conclusions are interesting, not necessarily a good way, but his data on socialized health care is eye-opening. Not wanting to be left of the band-wagon, Mr. Originality Barack Obama has also started trumpeting a version of socialized health care. However, if the issue gets accurate reporting, the Right has the advantage: if socialized health care gets the stigma it deserves, this issue is a cert for the Right. Conclusion: Right-Leaning.

4) Abortion & Euthanasia: The country has mixed messages about Abortion: polls indicate that a majority of Americans strongly support Roe, but are in favor of restricting Abortion. This is an interesting side-effect of the deification of Roe, and an interesting cultural phenomenon. The partial-birth abortion debate turned the country right-ward on Abortion, and that trend continues. Informed-consent laws, a dearth of government funding for abortions, and a general skittishness about the whole issue have turned the tide against the so-called "Pro-Choice Majority." Re-reading Ponnurru's "Party of Death," I'm confident that Abortion will one day be seen as a national nightmare--on the scale of slavery. Euthanasia, brought into the headlines with the Terri Schiavo debacle, is another issue the Democrats have embraced. Ponnurru reports that a Democratic operative reported, in the wake of the controversy, that "We can't just be the party of death all the time." Which brings me to my conclusion: the Republicans can win this year. We can win by exploiting these issues, and by pulling no punches on anything.

In conclusion, liberals make up a smaller portion of the electorate than conservatives. Hypothetically, that means that they must work harder every election. Forty-five years ago, this was opposite. What changed? The Democrats became the party of death. Although the tide is against us this election year in many ways, we can win.

This man scares the heck out of me.

Let's face it: the Barack Obama presidency now seems inevitable. I admire McCain for trying, and Hillary for not giving in, but it's inevitable. As Darth Vader, a close personal friend of Senator Obama would say, "It is your dessssstiny."

This video (here) shows the futility of all resistance to the Obama machine. Not only does the intransigence of his "hope" message crap, etc., but he can successfully mock Hillary for attacking him on the lack of substance in his campaign. Pretty good acting.

For a manikin.

No, I'm not insulting his intelligence. But it's the truth. Barack Obama is really a plastic facsimile created by the Borg Collective to influence human politics. He is controlled remotely, and he will influence America in the interests of the Borg Collective. For those of you who read this before the Borg assimilate me and take down this site, good luck. At all costs, the Barack Oborg menace must. Be. Stopped.

An duranium curtain has fallen across the free galaxy. Only John McCain and Hillary Clinton stand between it and your freedoms.

Run for your lives.

The Weekender

Among other things, this week brought Mitt Romney's endorsement of John McCain in the presidential race. This was a foregone conclusion, but the question remains: how many of Romney's delegates will consent to support McCain? If most of them go over to McCain, Huckabee's campaign will lose what little vigor it has left. If most of them go over to Huckabee, he will still be the longest of shots, but will still be very much in the race. That, at least, should be good. Although nothing really can derail McCain at this point, short of a heart attack, competition in the race is probably good for him. I think that if he stopped campaigning against Huckabee now, and entered general-election mode and attacked the Democrats this far ahead in the race, voters would quickly grow tired of it. On the other hand, he has a head start on Obama and Clinton, who still need to show each other who's boss in the Democratic race.

Another college shooting, this one at Norther Illinois University. Paradoxically, the shooter was a well-adjusted white male, outgoing and a decent student, as opposed to the V-Tech killer, an Asian with an inferiority complex and mental problems. This rampage was thankfully less deadly. So, why did this man suddenly crack? Easy, he went off his prescription meds. Just think about that for a second.

I've started a great book called "The Cure," written by a Canadian doctor, about health care in America. For those of you unaware, Mrs. Clinton advocates a socialized health care system, saying it would lead to "fair and equal care." This book, however, shoots that down in the first three chapters. Capitalism is good for the soul.

Well, I'll bid you adieu for now. Enjoy your Lenten season!

Is It Too Late for Hillary - TIME

Time Magazine, not known for insightful reporting in my opinion, has a decent piece about Obama's post-Super Tuesday murder of Clinton, with eight straight primaries or caucuses under his belt since.

I suggest you check it out, here.

Clinton has concentrated on late-primary states Texas and Ohio, who will vote on March 4, while leaving potential general election swing-states, such as late-primary Wisconsin in Obama's tender grasp. This could be a fatal move, but then again if she takes Texas and Ohio, she will be almost irretrievably ahead of Obama, so it could pan out.

I find myself backing Clinton in the Democratic race, for some reason. It could be just a cynical thing, based on the fact that Obama has a better chance of winning in the general election, but then again it could be a subconscious resentment of Obama's unspecific, "End pain and suffering" campaign. I think that might be it. Whatever can be said of Clinton, she really does have a plan as opposed to Obama's newspeak over everything from Abortion to immigration.

As the Time article says, "The battle has been joined; the question for the Clintons, however, is whether it is already too late."

A Post-Super Tuesday Race Analysis

The most surprising thing during an otherwise lackluster Super Tuesday week was Mitt Romney's surprise termination of his campaign the day afterwards. Although he was handily beaten in many states by John McCain, he still had a fighting chance, and many Conservatives who refused to support McCain or Huckabee, like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and other hard-liners, had endorsed him after the exit of other, more Conservative candidates such as Fred Thompson. Mitt Romney, the slick, corporate campaigner may have had the credentials, but he didn't connect with voters like Huckabee or even McCain. I wasn't really surprised that he dropped out, but that he did so not on Super Tuesday-night, after McCain's large victory was clear, but late the next day, after he made the customary, I-don't-have-a-chance "We will keep fighting" speeches the night before.

That leaves Huck and McCain. What a race it's been for both of them! John McCain, who started as one of the three frontrunners, was dead by July but came back, his turning point being the NH primary, where he smoked Romney and Huck. From there, he went up and Romney went down, aided by a mainstream media barrage in his favor. Huckabee, the surprise winner of the Iowa caucus, failed to win anything else until Super Tuesday, where he did surprisingly well. These two candidates are both mavericks in some way; Huckabee with his overtly religious down-home campaigning style and non-conformist stance on many issues, and McCain, 70-0dd years old and always a little liberal.

On the Republican side, at least, the voters threw out the establishmentarians like Romney and Thompson, and now Huck is fighting an almost vertical battle to keep the nomination away from the almost-certain winner McCain. It's an interesting race, and I fully expect McCain to win, but Huckabee has the charm and the votes to make it close. Good luck to him.

The Democratic race is in a little bit of a deadlock, with Obama beating Clinton during Super Tuesday with a minuscule two delegates. Obama cleaned up handily in the primaries after Super Tuesday, but if Hillary can keep the race close, the decision will go to the so-called "Superdelegates"--Dem bigwigs who, according to DNC policy, can make whoever the heck they want as the nominee, and to heck with the Democratic process. If it comes to that, Clinton will almost certainly get the nomination, but I'm hoping she won't escape unscathed. She has undeniable baggage, and my bet is that the Obama-Dems will raise heck if she's the nom--they can't afford to lose this election, and Obama has a much better chance of beating McCain.

So, the most likely outcome in my opinion: McCain v. Obama. McCain v. Hillary is a serious possibility, and after Super Tuesday it would have been my definite choice, but Obama is a serious force in the liberal, educated late-primary states--such as Wisconsin.

Either Hillary or Obama will have to trounce the GOPer, most likely McCain in the election. If so, they'll call it "historic," and a "triumph over the forces of darkness," and so on. If it's close, though, like a Dewey-Truman affair, then it would be seriously bad for the Dems. They could still give their, "This election shows us that America wants CHANGE!" spiel, but it won't be as enthusiastic. If McCain wins, I think it could be the death of the Democratic party as we know it. If I were the Democrats, I'd lock Obama into the nomination, because if Clinton loses, the country will have a Republican for twelve years running, something that didn't happen in the 20th century.

An interesting side-note: the hate among Conservatives towards McCain is so rabid that Ann Coulter has said she would vote for Hillary (!!!) over McCain. Typical Ann. I think this shows a serious disconnect with Conservative America. To hate a REPUBLICAN candidate more than a Dem, and especially HILLARY, of all people, is to show that Ann doesn't care so much about the issues as she does about keeping libs out of the Republican party. And while it may not be true that the worst Republican is better than the best Dem, A decent if under-achieving Republican, Gerald Ford for example, is much, much, MUCH better than his Dem equivalent, like Carter. Frankly, I think Ann is dead wrong. We CANNOT elect a Democrat. While we may survive it in the short term, it may be talked about in the history books as a turning point: where America went wrong.

Iowa Caucus Results

Although it appears that no one reads this blog anymore, I decided to post the results anyway.

Republicans:

With 25 percent of the results in, Huckabee was the clear winner, with 35 percent. Romney was second, with only 24 percent. Thompson placed third with 14 percent, and McCain ran fourth with 12 percent.

My Take:

This is almost unbelievable good for Huckabee. He went from the "top of the second tier" as I characterized it earlier in the campaign to running first in many polls. And now, he's won Iowa. I'm wondering if he can keep it up through New Hampshire and the other early primaries.

Obviously not so good for Romney. To lose by that much to Huckabee is certainly rather embarrassing, but he can recover and I can see him winning New Hampshire.

Third is good for Thompson, it will give him much-needed momentum.

Fourth for McCain is disappointing. Many analysts thought he would take third. Fred Thompson obviously still has the fire to beat him.

The Democrats:

Barack Obama took the Iowa Democratic Caucus, with 34 percent. Clinton and Edwards are in a dead heat for second, each with 32 percent.

My take:

This is good, but not unexpected news for Obama. He's been polling ahead of Hillary in Iowa for a while now, and I think he can keep up the momentum.

Bad, but also not unexpected for Hillary. She still has a lot of campaigning oomph and better connections than Obama.

This is very good for Edwards. If he places second, which Bob Novak predicted, it would be phenomenal and probably vice-president material. He's too annoying to beat Obama, however.

My predictions: McCain, who finished disapointingly in Iowa, has been campaigning hard in New Hampshire and is currently ahead according to the latest RCP poll. He swept the New Hampshire newspaper endorsements, and has rocketed up in the polls because of it. Romney is biting at his heels, with Giuliani, Huckabee, and Paul in a tight race for third. Thompson is barely above the margin of error. He's hoping his Iowa momentum will last him until South Carolina.

The Democrats are more widely spaced in New Hampshire, with Clinton ahead by a decent margin, and Edwards ten points behind Obama. If Obama can manage a win in NH, he will be unstoppable, but if Clinton wins, they will be neck-and-neck going into Michigan. I haven't seen numbers, but I tend to think Michigan would favor Obama. Edwards, although he finished well in Iowa, is not really a contender in my view. He's probably going for VP again.

My Predictions for the Nominee: Democrats: Easy. Obama. Barring anything unforeseen, his defeat of Clinton in Iowa was a major upset, even if most people saw it coming. It's possible he'd go for Hillary for his VP, but I think Edwards is a more likely choice. In the event that Hillary gets the nomination, I think she might get Richardson. He has the credentials of Biden without being old. Plus he's Hispanic.

Republicans: This is harder to call. I can see it going to Romney, Huckabee, McCain, and even Thompson at a stretch. My dream P/VP match would be Thompson-Huckabee, but Huckabee-Thompson might actually happen. Romney-McCain would be a nightmare.

Well, there you are! Hope you enjoyed it.

Randomness, Part...whatever

Well, first I want to say that I'm writing this on my new LAPTOP! Cool, huh? It's been a bit quiet on the politinews front lately. However, there are a few interesting news items. First, former Vice President and Minnesotan Walter Mondale is endorsing Hillary Clinton, as is country music czar Merle Haggard and courtroom-thriller-author John Grisham. *sniff* All those poor people. However, I stand by my earlier claim that she's unelectable. I mean, 50% percent of Americans HATE her. That's got to count for something. Well, anyway, I'm signing off now. If there are any more juicy tidbits, I'll be sure to post them.

Book Review: A Woman in Charge by Carl Bernstein

I know this wasn't on my "coming attractions" list, but I had to post it--especially since it was far too long to post on Goodreads, even after I had chopped, quartered and skimped. So, here it is:

I enjoyed reading Bernstein's book. However, it does not truly rise above the straight, banal presentation of the facts that describes so many other biographies. In my opinion, a truly great biography should cover the facts, of course, but over and above that should draw an important conclusion--something well-supported by the facts yet revolutionary. This did not happen in "A Woman in Charge."

Although the title clearly suggests that Bernstein is playing the late-capitalist-feminist card, the actual content of the book disproves that. HRC is not portrayed as the strong, emotionless, and calculating woman that the general public sees--in fact, Bernstein skirts dangerously close to Bay Buchanan's far-out-of-the-mainstream view that Hillary is weak, flawed, and almost megalomaniacal. This, certainly, is not what Senator Clinton wants us to believe, and it is probably far from the truth. Not that Bernstein is actively trying to make this impression, but especially while trying to portray the disarray the Starr investigation threw the First Family into, he emphasizes that Hillary was a bucket of tears, and that on Vince Foster's death she had a "serious emotional breakdown." This may well be the case, but the way Bernstein portrays it makes it seem almost sexist, as if Bernstein expects this of a woman.

That I was left with this impression could easily be due to Bernstein's peculiar relation of his facts and opinions. His writing is dry, crisp, and emotionless. I suppose Bernstein thinks his sacred reputation as "non-biased" is on the line, and he attempts to safeguard it by never giving an emotional view. In reality, however, I was surprised by the bias, and --to use his word--the "animus" that affects his writing like a plague.

While I was reading, I endeavored to mark the most outrageous hypocrisies for future reference. (In all fairness, there were not many.) Perhaps the most outrageous appears at the top of page 274. "His [Dick Morris's] testimony must be judged through the filter of his animus." This is undoubtedly a true statement; that is not what makes it hypocritical. Dick Morris is a partisan hack, almost as bad as the liberal media believes him to be. Bernstein knows this, of course. The interesting, the awful thing about it is that Bernstein fails to add a similar disclaimer to ANY of his other quoted sources. [It's interesting to note that Dick Morris WAS interviewed willingly by Bernstein, along with twenty or so others.] Notably, the author interviewed Robert Reich, one of the traditional white liberals in Bill Clinton's cabinet, Terry MacAuliffe, an infamous Clinton fundraising stooge and former chairman of the DNC, and George "I don't know" Stephanopoulos. In his "Note on Sources," Bernstein cites Stephanopoulos's "All Too Human" as "notably even-handed and candid." This is, of course, hypocrisy of the highest order. Stephanopoulos is just as much of a partisan hack as Dick Morris. And it was his journalistic colleague--not Morris's--Dan Rather who was fired from CBS for his falsified evidence impugning Bush's draft record.

Bernstein toes the party line on the Starr investigation, calling attention to the fact that he and all his colleagues were white males. It is, if I may say so, typically liberal to flash the race and sex get-out-of-jail-free cards.

The line that Bernstein takes on Clinton's "wrongdoings," from Whitewater to Travelgate to Monica, is interesting. As far as the "Clinton women" and draft-dodging are concerned, Bernstein states the facts manner-of-factly, no pun intended: Clinton WAS a draft dodger, and he DID "have sexual relations with the woman, Ms. Lewinsky." However, from there, he follows the tired old defenses to the letter. The Clintons' financial mishaps and miracles he staunchly defends with various excuses, perhaps because he knows that no one cares anymore about what happened to an obscure real-estate venture in Arkansas called Whitewater.

George H.W. Bush's Willie Horton campaign ads might have been below the belt: they are, as Bernstein says, "a classic example of negative campaigning." However, they most certainly did not have "clear racist overtones." In Wisconsin (well, everywhere) we have a word for things like this, and it fits like a glove: outrageous. The fact that Willie Horton was black was purely coincidental: what's not coincidental is that a convicted murderer raped and killed again while on Governor Dukakis' charming vacation program for convicted criminals, the "furlough." If there was any doubt in my mind before that Bernstein is just the sort of partisan hack he appears to despise, there wasn't anymore.

"The unprecedented campaign against a sitting president and first lady, well-organized and increasingly effective, continued." Bernstein is, of course, talking about the Clintons, but if you subtract the "wife" clause, it could just as easily apply to George W. Bush. [Unlike Hillary, Laura Bush has the sense to stay out of the spotlight. The mainstream media would tear her apart with a zest they could never show against Hillary.] Now we have the endless, pointless, baseless Plame Wilson fiasco, Walter Reed and Katrina blamed on the president [Global Warming is a very effective tool of the Democrats: it lets them blame natural disasters on Republicans.]

In the rear of the book, there is an acknowledgments and sources section. It's rather long, but one section is his sources "per chapter." It interested me to see that there were about the same amount of sources-per-chapter as Ann Coulter's much-maligned writing. Far be it from me to dispute the gact that Coulter is a partisan hack, but it's interesting to note that her works have as many sources as his. Now how does THAT tally with the difference in their reputations?

I'm growing tedious (and tired) so I will close. Bernstein is an enjoyable writer, and he can cleverly assume the guise of a neutral bias (perhaps that's why he has a Pulitzer Prize and Ann Coulter doesn't.) Even though I dislike MANY things about it, "A Woman in Charge" is still a worthwhile, and even enjoyable, read. Bernstein is, however, not the bipartisan saint he wishes us to believe. As he said himself, "His testimony must be judged through the filter of his animus."

The Extreme Makeover of Hillary (Rodham) Clinton, by Bay Buchanan

This book is extremely hard on Hillary. Almost too hard to be believed. Buchanan portrays Hillary as an insecure infomaniac. I can hardly agree with this assumption. I see her as more of a cynical politician, manipulating those around her for her own gain.

There is one passage in the book, however, that shines. It is talking about Hillary's original vote for War Authorization:

"But here are the facts. A heated national debate preceded the vote [to approve the use of military force against Iraq], with the antiwar voices from the Left and the Right, demanding the president seek congressional authority before proceeding. He did so. He toook his case to Congress and they gave him the authority he needed. The measure was entitled, "A Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq." Nothing ambiguous about it--and Hillary voted for it.
Now Hillary claims she didn't believe that she was voting for war--that is a lie. She doesn't have the courage to defend her vote or the courage to call it a mistake--she wants to blame it on someone else. He [Bush] "misled" me--it's all his fault.
But the bravery and sacrifice of our soldires--over three thousand of whom gave their lives--demands more from our leaders, especially those who would be president. Whether President Bush's decision was right or wrong, wise or foolish, he has always accepted full responsibility for it. For this much, he must be commended.
Hillary, on the other hand, accepts no responsibility. She is, therefore, not fit to serve, unqualified to command, and not worthy to be commander in chiref of our fine young men and women. It's about character."

Hillary is an opportunist. She attaches herself to the ascendent War platform, and speedily dismounts at the first sign that the war isn't goingwell. But hey, that's politics.

The Party of Lust, candidate #1

Rod Dreher, in his excellent book Crunchy Cons, calls the Republicans and Democrats "The party of greed and the party of lust." This is no doubt apt. Our political system is padlocked by these two parties, full of men and women who are not leaders but politicians. But anyway, to business.

1. Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Clinton is an enigma. She continues to exert her influence on the American political system by some of the most daring and convincing lies ever perpetrated in that system, which, I don't need to tell you, has seen a lot of philandering in its day. Her carefully constructed persona of good will toward everyone is so real as to almost convince you. Does this deter the American people? Of course not, where have you been? History has shown that the best-funded candidate who can make him or herself out to be something completely alien to their nature is the one who will win the election, and will rule Park Place and Boardwalk with an iron hand for the next four years. I believe Hillary will win the election, and the next one. I dare say, she'll wrangle hard for a third term as well. Under her rule, the country would descend further back into the Primordial swamp. First of all, the Health Care system would be socialized, and the tax burden would virtually erase America's middle class. In Canada, it is noted, where they have socialized health care, most people who can afford it come to America for medical treatment. The hospitals, under contract from the government, would not have to fear malpractice lawsuits, standards would slide, and medical care would be reduced to a laughingstock. More, that is, than it has already.

Anyway, time constraints force me to close, but Hillary would be the worst thing in our country since Michael Jackson. And I mean that to sting.