The Candidates: Where are they now?

It's been several weeks since my last post, and several months since I really went into detail about the Presidential candidates. I deeply apologize.

The election, of course, is closer than ever, and in that time period, the campaigns have really got off the ground.

So, let's begin.

THE DEMOCRATS
They are heavily favored, but one scandal could drag them all down.

HILLARY CLINTON
She continues to lead in the polls, with a fairly substantial margin over B. Obama. So far, her campaigning has been relatively flawless, as one would suspect. Especially since she's been planning it for decades.

BARACK OBAMA
He is still a force to be reckoned with, and I can easily see the nomination going to him. He's "inexperienced," but compared to Hillary's record, that's definitely a good thing. Especially if he's running as an outsider; someone who says he wants to turn Washington upside down.

JOHN EDWARDS
He's a long-shot, but he's played all his cards in Iowa, and that could get him almost onto the same level as Obama and Clinton. Even more than Obama, he's running a populist campaign. He was on the cover of Esquire, for crying out loud. Honestly, though, for an unprincipled former trial lawyer, Edwards has made it far. Too far. I almost hope he'll get the VP ticket again--he lost his own state in 2004.

THE OTHER DEMOCRATS
No one really stands out, but I think that's because the Democratic Party has two dream candidates in Obama and Clinton, and a third one for the racist bigots "yellow dog" 'crats who won't vote for the other two--Edwards. Biden continues his straight talk, but it's getting him nowhere fast. The others: zilch.

THE REPUBLICANS
Even though they are a long-shot for the presidency, we have a reasonably strong field, with something for just about everybody.

RUDY GIULIANI
...Is fighting for his life in the polls. Fred Thompson, who has only JUST started campaigning, is already close to him in the polls, and that combined with his liberal views makes me very doubtful of his chances.

JOHN MCCAIN
Is dead. Not literally. He'll probably still get about six or seven votes; all old Texan men with big belt buckles.

MITT ROMNEY
It's hard to categorize Romney. He flip-flopped on Abortion, and he has a liberal spending record, but who knows? He's running third in the polls and leading a flawless campaign. Still though, he seems lackluster.

FRED THOMPSON
He finally announced his candidacy, and none too soon. He'll have to play a strong game, especially as he is seen as an establishmentarian candidate. Not a good thing for a candidate campaigning as an outsider. He was a Washington lobbyist too, which is a yellow card. I think he has wide appeal, and he's probably my pick for nominee.

MIKE HUCKABEE
Has made a serious play, and is now in the top of the second tier, or the bottom of the first tier, and upwardly mobile. A bass-guitar-playing former Baptist minister from Arkansas? Every liberal's worst fear. He's even slime and mildly photogenic. Go Mike!

THE OTHER REPUBLICANS
Are preeety sad. We'll see though.

Sorry for all the time I've been gone. School's started and put me in a bit of a time-bind. I'm going to try to be more regular in the future. Believe me, I have lots of ideas.

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 footsteps of my doom draw ever closer...

Well hopefully not for a while yet...

Anyway, now that I've completed the main democrat candidates, I will speedily launch into the three GOP frontrunners: John McCain the tempestuous fat old guy, Mitt Romney, the perfect-haired Mormon, and Rudy Guiliani, the Italian Prima Donna.

My homework load is, if not actually up to my eyes, at least up to my chin, with more expected.

After the Repubs., I will briefly address the minor characters, and then pull a candidate from the proverbial hat who will get my endorsement. After that, expect several current-affairs-related posts, and one about Postmodern Times by Gene Veith, our latest reading assignment at school, and so far one of the most enjoyable.

Until then, I bid you adieu.

The Party of Lust, Candidate # 3

John Edwards

He just won't go away. Some people, uneducated, crude, vulgar, republican people, but people nonetheless, might be deterred by the fact that you had lost a presidential election in your own state. And yet, that's exactly what John Edwards hasn't done. I suppose you have to give him credit for perseverance. I mean, who in their right mind would be so heedless that he would continue to tun in the face of already having lost, and his wife, who he appears to love, having breast cancer again. Well, I guess all we've only proved that he's rather thick-skulled. In fact, many eminent doctors are of the opinion that his brain is no longer connected to the rest of his body, and that his body is merely "running on fumes" as one put it. Some are even of the opinion that he has no brain in his head. This may explain why he recently spent $400 on a haircut, out of his campaign donations. You'd think a former lawyer would know that you can't get away with things like that. Oh, wait... Anyway, Edwards doesn't have a chance against Obama or Clinton. I wouldn't even back him against Giuliani or Romney. Good Riddance, Brek Girl.

The Party of Lust, Candidate #2

So: on to Candidate #2

Barack Hussein Obama

Obama is a long shot for two reasons: He doesn't have the influence or the fundraising sources that Hillary has, although they're neck and neck in the fundraising right now with about 25 million for him and 26 for her, and I think she'll pull away from him in the polls. The second reason is that he has charisma. No bad thing, right? Wrong. He's all charisma and not enough issues, much like Segolene Royale, the French socialist candidate for Premier, which I believe is the equivalent of president .

It seems to me that Republicans are giving Obama an easy ride, instead of lambasting every move he makes like they do with Hillary. Even the notoriously soft-spoken, insightful, and humble Rush Limbaugh, in his Limbaugh Letter, did not antagonize Obama himself, but ridiculed what he calls "Obama-Worship" by Hollywood and the media. This light-fingering is probably caused partly by Obama's lack of a stand on issues, which, as we said earlier, might backfire rather badly on him, and the fact that Obama has leftist "Defenders of Equality" like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, who are ready to paint anyone who disagrees with Obama as a "racist fascist Nazi capitalist pig" if they're in a good mood, and such is their influence that many people would believe them. What a wonderful world we live in.

Next up, John Edwards.