Hollow Victory
Barack Obama routed Hillary Clinton two to one in the heaviest turnout in a Democratic primary in the history of South Carolina. Such a defeat would normally be a crushing and perhaps fatal blow to a rival's campaign. Bill and Hillary laughed it off.
Indeed, even before the voting had ended, Bill Clinton had tarnished and diminished Barack's victory. Responding to an unrelated question, he volunteered that Jesse Jackson won South Carolina twice in the 1980s.
This is an Arkansan way of saying black candidates always do well when there is a large black bloc vote, as in the Deep South, but no one should take this seriously. By introducing Jackson and earlier saying the Palmetto State contest would be about gender and race, Clinton set the media to looking beyond Barack's total vote to its racial composition.
And, sure enough, when the final returns came in, Barack had won 78 percent of the black vote, and lost 76 percent of the white vote.
Thus, Barack's victory instantly raised a question in the minds of pundits and politicians. Can Democrats nominate a black candidate who cannot win a fourth of the white vote in a landslide victory in a Democratic primary in South Carolina?
Would nominating such a candidate cede all 11 states of the Old Confederacy to the GOP and imperil Democratic candidates all the way down the ticket? In truth, it would.
The anger and bristling defiance of the Clintons in his victory speech suggests that Obama knows what has been done to him and is being done to him, and knows there is little he can do about it.
Indeed, his victory speech was sandwiched by cable TV between a speech by Bill from Missouri and a town hall meeting with Hillary from Tennessee in which both congratulated Barack as though he had just won a friendly round of golf. Their smiles and laughter said more than their words that Barack's victory was a big nothing-burger.
Both Clintons, in their non-concession concession speeches, looked ahead confidently not only to Feb. 5, when half the nation goes to the polls, but to Florida, which is today.
What was this all about, as Hillary and Obama agreed not to campaign in Florida and no delegates will be chosen, as the state is being sanctioned by the party for getting out of line in the primary process?
Seems the Clintons have been clandestinely working Florida, so that, after the South Carolina setback, they can get big headlines by winning the largest state yet to vote. This could instantly cancel out Barack's momentum from South Carolina and create Clinton momentum for the seven days before Super Tuesday.
It's bending the rules perhaps, but tactically brilliant, assuming they win. And, according to The New York Times, by the Friday before the Florida primary, some 400,000 Floridian Democrats had already voted.
Bill and Hillary are being accused of the politics of divisiveness and playing the race card. But while the former president may have behaved in a most unpresidential way, he is doing for his wife nothing Bobby Kennedy—"Ruthless Robert," as he was then known—would not and did not do for his brother and Old Joe Kennedy, who is said to have bought the West Virginia primary, did not do for his son.
Feb. 5 seems certain to be do-or-die day for Barack Obama. As of this writing, he has more votes than Hillary and more delegates, but has been made to pay a huge price for his success.
He has been converted by the Clintons, their surrogates and a media that the Clintons have played like a Stradivarius from the Barack who carried white Iowa into The Black Candidate.
There is nothing the Clintons and their surrogates have said that is overtly racist. From raising the drug issue, to calling Barack's rendition of his record on Iraq a "fairy tale," to contending that, while Dr. Martin Luther King was an inspirational leader, LBJ got the job done, to saying South Carolinians will vote on gender and race, to raising the Jesse Jackson comparison, all the points the Clintons have made are valid.
It is the media's obsession with race that has done the job for the Clintons in marginalizing Obama and given him the high hurdles he faces on Feb. 5.
The problem for Barack is this: If, on Super Tuesday, he wins again the same 78 percent of the black vote he won in South Carolina, while losing the 76 percent of the white vole he lost, and loses that two-thirds of the Hispanic vote he lost in Nevada, he could be wiped out.
Indeed, polls show his Hispanic vote shrinking further and faster than his white vote, his "Yes, we can" ("Si, se puede") refrains notwithstanding.
January raises a long-term question. If an African-American with as great a cross-racial appeal as Obama had in Iowa can be so easily ghettoized in three weeks to where whites and Hispanics, the fastest growing minority in America, recoil, when if ever can a black American be nominated or elected president?
Is Bill Clinton not only "our first black president," but our last?
COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
Entries(RSS)
I would like to inquire of Mr. Buchanan, exactly what does it matter that Southern whites might not vote for Obama? The Democratic Party has worked for over 40 years to build a permanent voting bloc that will keep them in the White House forever, by importing the voters from Latin America and non-Russian Asia. Now that the GOP establishment promises to keep up the war in Iraq combined with tax cuts to drown our country in red ink, plus managed "free trade" agreements to ship job after job out of the country, the Democratic Party will get enough white middle-class votes plus their enormous 3rd-world immigrant voting bloc to get into the White House, lock the door, and throw away the key. I believe this election year is when that will finally take effect. The Democrats can nominate anybody they want - the first woman, the first black, or the traditional white male. As long as they promise to increase the benefits of their welfare state, increase taxes to pay for it, and end the war in Iraq, then Hillary, Barack, or maybe by some miracle, Mr. Edwards, will take the oath from Chief Justice Roberts in a year.
"The Democratic Party has worked for over 40 years to build a permanent voting bloc that will keep them in the White House forever, by importing the voters from Latin America and non-Russian Asia."
And if you'll pardon me for stating the obvious, it bears repeating that the Republicans have been only too willing to play along in order to bow to their massive corporate sponsors' demand for an endless supply of slave labor.
Quite true, Nicholas. Does the GOP seriously think that the new immigrant masses who are employed by those corporate sponsors will actually vote for the GOP? Most are poor and look to the welfare state for a living, meanwhile the GOP promises to curb the growth of spending on those very welfare entitlements they sign up for after crossing the border. The Democratic Party is the champion of divisive race and identity politics, and it is music to the ears of Hispanic immigrants who were taught in their schools on the south side of the Rio Grande that hundreds of square miles of land on the north side truly belongs to them. The GOP's voting base is the polar opposite: the religious, traditionalist, white middle class - a base that the GOP depends on for its life but which is dying from the plague known as the sexual revolution. Blinded by ideology, the GOP refuses to understand these things. They are the intellectual heirs of England's Tories - the Stupid Party.
P.S. I would like to credit Mr. Buchanan for the Tory-Republican comparison, I believe I read it in one of his books.
Dick Morris predicted exactly what Mr. Buchanan asserts has happened, namely that Senator Obama's victory would be, by the Clintons and their willing mignons in the press, turned into a pyric victory using the issue of race. According to Mr. Morris, the intent of the Clintons was to raise a white backlash against Mr. Obama and to demonstrate that he could not get the majority of the white vote but that Hillary could. Mr. Morris and Mr. Buchanan seem to be correct.
I personally could not care less which party wins in November, with, in my opinion, both parties being the hissing heads of the same destructive leviathan - the empire.
Granted, the Democrats are more overt with their Marxist, collectivist intentions while the Republican peddle theirs sugar coated and with not little guile. The Democrats will, therefore, probably take us into the fires of political and economic hell more quickly. But, better to be consumed at once by the flames than to have hot coals "gently" placed on the tenderest parts of the body by the Republicans as they whisper, "We're on your side!"
The Democrats and the Republicans, two faces of the same monster, have different reasons for wanting the legal and illegal immigrants, both equally dangerous as a demographic weapon. However, pursuant to the illegals, I posit the following:
1.) Illegals come because minimum wage laws, child labor laws, union negotiated wages and benefits, and wages and benefits given beyond their real market value in order to defeat organized unionization have made many essential jobs outlaw, i.e. there is a blackmarket of jobs which must be done by someone.
2). Illegals come because federal mandates and in some cases state mandates - coming from the courts, some agency decree of legislatively - give them entitlements.
3). Illegals come because they can claim birthright citizenship under the very suspect 14th amendment and the even more suspect interpretation of the "jurisdiction" clause.
4). Illegals come because it is too easy to get here and to stay since federal and state laws are not being enforced.
The Democrats see them as a new constituency. The Republicans, as someone on this thread has stated, tolerate them in order to placate their corporate constituency.
There are those, I believe, who see the illegals as a demographic weapon in bringing about a "North American Union."
Certain elements currently see immigrants as a weapon to "reconquer" parts of the United States.
In aggregate, all of these factors contribute to the end of the constitutional federated Republic which we think to have, although I assert that the Republic has been dead since 1865 and what we have thought all these years to be the Republic is the wraith of the empire possessing the dead corpse of the Republic which it murdered.
Perhaps we should distinguish between what happens and what we want to happen. Naturally, any normal person would like to see the Clintons get their comeuppance, but if Obama continues to be the black candidate, then he cannot win the nomination. I don't think Mr. Buchanan was saying anything other than that obvious fact. Republicans are far worse than Tories, who often betrayed English traditions for the sake of holding power but who typically made some effort to defend the interests of the people who put them into office. The nature of their constituency changed in the 19th century, from country squires to a mixture of agricultural and commercial interests, and Disraeli certainly sold out the people who had most trusted him, but Disraeli--the first neoconservative--is a tower of moral strength compared to the leaders of the GOP over the past several decades.
Brock H @3
"The GOP’s voting base is the polar opposite: the religious, traditionalist, white middle class - a base that the GOP depends on for its life but which is dying from the plague known as the sexual revolution."
I would also add exhaustion along with the plague. Even the strongest of soldiers will sucumb to fatigue under repeated assaults and weak leadership. I think 33%, when Pat Buchanan was running against Bob Dole, was the high water mark of what was left of the republicans " voting base." Even John McCain has said openely that the Pitchfork Pat followers were no longer needed or even wanted in the Big Tent, suggesting a Greyhound Bus for Pat as he was leaving the Grand Ol Party. We have long memories and are tired of fighting ---- and voting.
What I find most interesting in this whole debacle is the actions of the Kennedys. Caroline has seemingly been rather apolitical over the years, and her endorsement of Obama is of importance. While Dubyah has seen fit to largely destroy the Republican party by breaking up the Reagan Coalition, the Clintons are doing the same sort of thing to the Democrats. The latter seem to be trying triangulation to win the nomination. If they get feminists, Mexicans, and male or metrosexual liberals to vote in sufficient numbers, they can win without the blacks. I suspect that the Kennedys are trying to block this cynical splintering of their party. From what I can see from the words and actions of my students, blacks are taking Obama's candidacy extremely seriously. If Hillary pulls this off, I think that blacks will be staying home in November, and that is going to be a huge problem for the Democrats. Even if Obama is made the VP nominee, he will be viewed by his supporters as being given second place and that will not sit well, either. It is a circus, and I am still voting for Ron Paul in both the primary and general elections here in Illinois.
Since blacks will vote Deomcratic regardless, I imagine a deal is being considered to run Edwards as the VP and get the red states' vote.
" While Dubyah has seen fit to largely destroy the Republican party by breaking up the Reagan Coalition, the Clintons are doing the same sort of thing to the Democrats. "
Another example of the "two wings of the same bird of prey, the duopoly twins, twiddle dee and twiddle dumber, etc.. "
Actually, what I feel is more interesting on the Democratic side is the generational divide. The members of my family who are baby boomers (who both live in Illinois and Wisconsin) cannot stand Obama. They think he's a vacuous windbag. They're not hardcore Hillary supporters either but they'd rather support her than Obama. On the other hand, a lot of people of my generation and young support Obama because they are tired (as I am) of baby boomer politics. In some ways Obama's rise has hurt Ron Paul, othwerise he would have the corner on student activism. Whether this cuts through racial differences remains to be seen and probably will be best viewed in California on Feb. 5 with the largest pool of Hispanic voters available so far anyway. It will either be a racial or generational vote. We'll see.
Anything to prevent a McCain-Clinton general election, which would be like choosing between cyanide and rat poison. Uggh! I shudder at such a choice.
I should have said that negotiations should be going on now to run Edwards as the Clintons' running mate.
Blacks may be miffed that Osama would be cut, but I doubt they will swing over and vote McCain.
In any case, there are the Diebold cheat codes which apparently the Clintons used in New Hampshire, and if so, they could be used again at anytime for whomever has cut the right deals (presumably the Clintons).
However, although this is all very interesting, I remind myself that elections USA are a dog-and-pony show, and #11 is right that we have but one party with two faces.
I have always expected Hillary to get the Democratic nomination. I do not see Obama to be the "better" as I apply my system of values to him. My expectation that Hillary will get the nomination is based on my personal encounters with her machine in Arkansas. During my tenure in Arkansas, Hillary and Bill were already in the White House; however, much like Huey Long running Louisiana as a U.S. Senator and much like Edwin Edwards running Louisiana while in his Texas exile durning the Roemer years, Hillary and not Bill ran Arkansas from afar. She was Huckabee's real opposition during his years as Governor, particluarly in those first years.
I do not agree that Blacks will stay home if Obama is not the nominee or not on the ticket as VP. Bill was the "first Black President" because he understood how to make the federal machinery move the money into the Black community through grants, loans and other entitlements. In the end, the Clintons will play this trump card to their greatest advantage and the leadership of the Black community will bring out the vote in November, particularly after Hillary has racially vilified the Republican candidate regardless of who he might be.
While in Arkansas, I encountered no few Democratic politicos who spoke of Hillary's negative charisma. A lady, who had served in the state senate, once told me of a piece of legislation which she wanted to sponsor. Being a good Democrat and being fond of Governor Clinton, she cleared the bill with him before she put it before the proper joint committee of the Assembly. At a certain time on a certain date, the bill was scheduled to come up before the committee. As the bill came up, the doors to the committee room burst open and in stormed Hillary, unelected and holding no position of authority, with her Praetorian Guard. She walked up to the large committe table, placed her fist on the table in front of the chair, and said, "This damn bill dies here, now!" All of the men on the committee folded. The lady told me that she did not know why Hillary was against the bill, but that her being against it was enough. Therefore, I would conclude that Hillary will get or attempt to get an iron grip on the Democratic members of Congress.
The GOP has given her some formidable tools: the Patirot Act, the secret courts, etc. She will not hesitate to use them against her enemies.
As harsh as this sounds, I believe after the war between the states, we eliminated black slave labor for all of us being slaves! We are headed for a welfare state and little freedom I'm sorry to say. It is death by a thousand cuts. Getting votes is what it is all about.
Rob
@3: As others have implied, the Democratic Party these days is wedded almost as tightly to corporate trusts as the Republicans. Corporations are increasingly finding Evangelical Protestants and observant Catholics a liability to their metrosexual marketing campaigns and are their defection makes for a Democratic Party that, broadly speaking, is increasingly neo-liberal on economics and radically left on cultural and moral issues. The United States may well become a single-party state after the death of the G.O.P.--but by no means a single-faction entity. The coalition will be a fractious one at that, bitterly and sharply divided along racial and ideological lines and in such stupid bewilderment at the sudden economic and social collapse that the American people take it out on their fellow citizens of opposing factions rather than on the university professors and Ivy League professional school alumni that are the actual culprits.
I pray almost every night that I will not have to return to the U.S.
"Bill was the “first Black President” because he understood how to make the federal machinery move the money into the Black community through grants, loans and other entitlements."
Frankly, if they cannot see that it was Bill Clinton who signed NAFTA, ushering in the age of "free trade" and ruining once and for all the manufacturing base that had been the lifeline to prosperity for working-class blacks and whites for decades, then they--just like every other American--deserve what they get.
For the earlier poster who said that tax cuts drown the nation in red ink, I'd like to point out that just the opposite is true. Ronald Reagan cut taxes and especially the highest tax rate and the 1980s - after getting over Jimmy Carter's recession - was a time of economic boom. The country cannot 'tax itself' into prosperity.
If you want to know what drowns the nation in red ink, it's the terrible federal (and state and local) spending, usually on pork and social(ist) programs. The government is running a "Nanny State" with care for all from the cradle to the grave. Of course, it doesn't work. It has NEVER worked, but still, the politicians try it. Why? Because it is a sure ticket to eternal employment at the public trough.
Benjamin Franklin once posited that once Congress learned that they could use the People's money to redistribute the wealth, the Republic was a dead letter. Yeah.... Only now, we KNOW it's dead.
"For the earlier poster who said that tax cuts drown the nation in red ink, I’d like to point out that just the opposite is true."
Correct, Valerie, if there is not an enormous government operation that costs a few trillion tax dollars going on at the same time. However, that isn't our case right now. The war on terror is that government operation. Only low taxes combined with a minimalist federal government will guarantee balanced budgets and a small, if any, federal debt.
The black vote is irrelevant!........They can no longer breed as fast as Hispanics can swim the Rio Grande.(Simple mathmatics).
Nationwide, the hispanics are replacing the blacks in every hourly job, and is most obvious in the fast food industry. They are being played for fools by their employers, as well as the hispanics that take their jobs.(They never sue for losing their job, but will bring the wrath of political correctness down, if you block their intitlements!)
Even the Democrats will have to cut intitlements, or face a major depression, and the intitlements will be cut back. The Black voters will be told, "Sorry, we have a new fool now!".......And, the whole game start's over with the "Hispanic Civil Rights Movement".
As Conservatives remind the Blacks that they have always apposed out of control immigration, factories moving offshore, and America's job market being replaced by illegal labor, and unfair trade deals, the Black voter will say in a state of confusion................................."Now, who are you guys?"
#15 You should read Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Freemen by Jefferey Hummel
Dubyah has broken up the Reagan Coalition?? I despise Dubyah, but, please the breaking up of Reagan's coalition is simple mathematical subtraction. The coalition was formed in 1980, some 28 years ago. Blue collar dems, Archie Bunker types, i.e., "the greatest generation" (Nixon supporters) formed the decisive part of that coalition. They're largely dead and have not been replaced. On the other hand, the brainwashed, socialist inclined, product of the American (Frankfurt) educational system is now voting in full swing. Do the math. No mystery here.
#1 is quite right, the Marxist party is poised to enter, lock the door and throw away the key. With the inevitably changing demographic turning the USA into a 3rd world country, dead bolts and chains will be placed on that door.
I thank God that I am 50 and likely will be dead or senile by the time my beloved country is totally unrecognizable.
It is true that what has occurred to the Reagan coalition (its death) was an ineluctable result of the older generation dying out, but George W. Bush has had his foot on the gas, as Buchanan has pointed out in numerous columns. Free trade and mass immigration, along with the increasingly obvious insanity of the neocons' "foreign policy" have pushed Reagan Democrats and independents in general into the Democrat column.
Sean Scallon, I completely agree with you that the divide between Hillary and Obama supporters comes down primarily to a generational gap. I too am sick of baby boomer politics. Those voting for Hillary tend to be older; Obama's support comes from the young.
Ultimately, what is going to kill Obama (most likely) is that most Hispanic voters in states like California aren't going to vote for a half-black man. It's not going to happen. There is a race war in the streets of our cities. Los Angeles is the city of the future. Unfortunately.