May 9th, 2008

Apollo 4 on column of fire

Ugh. Everyone come along, I’m taking you out for ice cream.

Hillary Clinton’s cloddish recitation of fantasies about demographic groups, in terms of such sort as ‘hard-working whites’, seem to me just the latest version of ‘If you look at it sideways with your head in a bowl of cottage cheese, then I win!’ I think she is not articulate enough to be tactful. I am getting really annoyed that people treat her as some kind of ‘genius’ being misled by advisers or gone totally mad with powerlust. She’s not as generally ‘smart’ as you think she is! So many mysteries are built on the assumption that, just because she is some kind of policy-point nerd who can pull a sort of rabbit out of a sort of hat, Hillary Clinton must be as capable generally as Barack Obama or Al Gore or any other such brainiac. No, she’s not! Everything becomes much clearer when you come to accept that.

You can’t turn left or right now without seeing ‘Hillary’s playing the race card’. The New York Times editorial page included. But this isn’t playing the race card, I think, like she was doing when her surrogates were speaking mostly in code, nasty innuendo. Instead, it seems to me, Hillary Clinton is just not sophisticated enough to keep the demographics talk internal to the campaign, while getting the desired message to superdelegates and voters by indirect means (by which I do not mean innuendo, nor do I mean imbibing whiskey while skinning a deer).

I think there are a lot of people who could use a trip to the ice cream shop, including the editorial page people at the New York Times. From here on out it’s really mostly arranging (I think and hope) for Oregon or whoever to put Obama’s total delegate count past the finish line. For that to happen, Hillary Clinton must stay in the race, and the benefits will include getting out more and more new voters, more and more crossovers from the Bushist Party, more and more turnout, etc. Also, Obama-supporting superdelegates have to announce their support at the right times.
Apollo 4 on column of fire

Burma

I wish media outfits would quit participating in the ‘Myanmarization’ of Burma. I hear that the Washington Post is calling it Burma, at least, as is Laura Bush (because ‘Burma’ is the name recognized by the US), but I also hear that the New York Times is calling it by that other name.
Apollo 4 on column of fire

Apparently it is more purposeful race-baiting

Brent Budowski on the Randi Rhodes Show is explaining who Big Dog and Paul Begala have been going around race-baiting, too, so Hillary is clumsily trying the same. (Begala’s methods have been clumsy, too, while Bill’s have of course been subtle innuendo.)

The gas tax backfired with voters and the race-baiting is backfiring now with superdelegates.
Apollo 4 on column of fire

‘Preternaturally divisive and polarizing’

Brent Budowsky just called Hillary Clinton ‘preternaturally divisive and polarizing’ and said that she can’t help herself from doing that even when it is in her interest to do the opposite.

He also predicts she’ll suspend her campaign by May 21 or thereabouts.
Apollo 4 on column of fire

Kennedy and Column

Ted Kennedy:

"I don't think it's possible," [Ted Kennedy] told Hunt of the joint ticket, continuing that:

Obama should choose a running mate who "is in tune with his appeal for the nobler aspirations of the American people," Kennedy said. "If we had real leadership — as we do with Barack Obama — in the No. 2 spot as well, it'd be enormously helpful."



And Brent Budowsky’s column in The Hill: http://pundits.thehill.com/2008/05/09/pathetic-hillary-plays-the-white-voter-card
Apollo 4 on column of fire

How weird have things gotten?

Hillary Clinton has made it so that Peggy Noonan’s fictitious fantasy world actually coincides with the Earth we all live on, if only for this one article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121027865275678423.html

BTW Peggy talks about something I had noticed:

In case you didn't get what was behind that exchange, Mrs. Clinton spent this week making it clear. In a jaw-dropping interview in USA Today on Thursday, she said, "I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on." As evidence she cited an Associated Press report that, she said, "found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

White Americans? Hard-working white Americans? "Even Richard Nixon didn't say white," an Obama supporter said, "even with the Southern strategy."

If John McCain said, "I got the white vote, baby!" his candidacy would be over. And rising in highest indignation against him would be the old Democratic Party.

To play the race card as Mrs. Clinton has, to highlight and encourage a sense that we are crudely divided as a nation, to make your argument a brute and cynical "the black guy can't win but the white girl can" is -- well, so vulgar, so cynical, so cold, that once again a Clinton is making us turn off the television in case the children walk by.


Richard Nixon—who probably indeed never expressed himself so bluntly—was an especially bright bulb. He may have been an ethical moron, but he had brains squeezed into his big head so tightly that they stuck out of his ear holes. Bill Clinton also has big brains, and you may notice how subtly he speaks; ‘Jesse Jackson won here twice’ was a slip into crudity for him, and he paid the price. Hillary Clinton doesn’t have such a command of language; that is what I had noticed about her.

Well, Obama is going to be the nominee, and he has his own language problem, a lack of terseness. Maybe Wes Clark, now that he is free of supporting Hillary, and who in 2004 sometimes answered questions in one word, can give Obama some lessons in terseness. :)