President Hillary
If polls are reliable, Hillary will win the Democratic nomination. The Democratic groups that prefer Obama are not sufficiently numerous to give him the nomination.
Of course, anything can happen in a political campaign, but the latest Field Poll of likely California Democrats and independent voters gives Hillary a 39 percent to 27 percent lead over Obama. This is bad news for Obama, because California is a progressive state where race is less likely to be a handicap.
Obama is favored by those who rank the Iraq war and foreign policy as the most important issues, by blacks, college graduates and those with higher incomes.
Hillary is favored two to one by women, two to one by lower income groups and three to one among Latinos. Hillary has a further advantage. At the 2004 Democratic National Convention, approximately 50 percent of the delegates were women. As Democratic delegates are invariably feminists, they are not going to miss the chance of putting a woman in the presidency.
Are the Democrats choosing Hillary because she has the moral integrity to stop an unjust war and to hold war criminals responsible for leading America into war based on lies and deception? Are they choosing Hillary because she defends the U.S. Constitution from usurpation by executive power? Are they choosing her because she is public-spirited instead of personally ambitious?
No. The Democrats are choosing Hillary because of gender and race. Despite all the efforts of Democratic activist groups, the majority of Democratic voters are more concerned with race and gender issues than with their country's reputation and their civil liberties.
If elected president, Hillary will bring no more change than did the Democratic congressional majority elected in 2006.
Obama might not bring any change, either. But he is the only candidate in the running who has expressed concern over Israel's mistreatment of the Palestinians and who was against the Iraq invasion. Clearly, he is a better bet for change than Hillary. Democrats are more attuned to race and gender issues than to war crimes and loss of civil liberties, however.
This is not to argue that Republicans are an improvement. Their likely nominee is John McCain, who has recently said that he is OK with a 100-year war in Iraq. McCain is as willing to attack Iran as George Bush and Dick Cheney, and he would not be averse to conspiring with Israel and the neoconservatives to pull off an attack. Republicans don't even have a "change" candidate in the running. They have worked to marginalize Ron Paul precisely because he would be an instrument of change.
Even if Obama were elected and was sincere about change, what could he do? Probably very little. The pool of candidates from which he could staff an administration is not that much different from that of any other candidate. He can pass over a neocon architect of the Iraq invasion and settle on an architect of President Clinton's bombing of Serbia.
Moreover, Congress will still be controlled by the same interest groups. If Obama were to appoint people opposed by the military-security lobby, the Israel lobby or the offshoring lobby, the Senate would be unlikely to confirm them. No president wants to nominate people who cannot be confirmed. Presidents have to staff their administrations according to who can get the approval of powerful interest groups.
This makes it difficult to change the status quo. It only takes one senator to put a hold on an appointment. Change in Washington requires breaking many iron grips.
In the presidential race, Hillary would defeat McCain, who without any doubt is the war candidate. Hillary will get the women's vote, the minorities' vote and the antiwar vote. McCain will get the vote of angry macho white males.
What Hillary has to worry about is a major terrorist attack, whether real or orchestrated, that would revive the 9-11 fears and send voters scurrying to put the presidency into the hands of a war hero. As Hillary is not regarded as a threat to Israel's territorial expansion or to the interests of the military-security complex, the only wild card is some terrorist action that would require the failure of U.S. security in order to succeed.
Of course, all of this ignores the salient fact: No one knows how the Diebold electronic voting machines programmed by Republican operatives with proprietary software will count the votes.
If it hasn't become a stolen affair, the American presidency has become a family affair—one that is passed from a Bush to a Clinton to a Bush and back to a Clinton. The interest groups are satisfied, and nothing of importance changes.
After Hillary will we have Jeb?
COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
Entries(RSS)
In terms of immigration, Obama, McCain and Giuliani are the three worse candidates. Obama may actually be the worst.
In a Clinton v. McCain race, it might be preferable to support Clinton. McCain most certainly would push for amnesty, and he would have the Republican muscle to push for it. Clinton, on the other hand, who only wants to be president, may not even attempt an amnesty bill and, if she did, Republicans would oppose it out of partisan habit.
Hopefully, though, there will be a viable third-party candidate.
three worst candidates, rather
We are getting close to the worst of both worlds. Hillary is clearly the worst democratic candidate and McCain arguably the second worst republican, if you figure that the degenerate militarist Giuliani is even worse than the insane militarist McCain. As compared to McCain, I'd have to rate Hillary as the lesser evil. The white witch is a militarist, but one who would wage war as the opportunity arises. Unlike McCain, she would not seek to create the opportunities. What can be said of the American people that these end up being our "choices"? I've long opposed democracy and get more empirical evidence for my opposition every day.
Mr. Higdon, a country with a republic as its form of government is the perfect place to be opposed to democracy, because beyond a very limited extent, it is incompatible with a republican form of government. One of our Founding Fathers, I don't remember which, said that democracy is the worst type of government. Keep up your opposition to democracy, and I will keep up mine. We are simply intellectual heirs of the men who built the late, great U.S.A.
Folks,
Send Mitt Romney money............................he is our last chance to give us someone to run against Hillary or Obama that we can vote for (even if we aren't very enthusiastic about it).
I wasn't crazy about the guy, but Thompson dropped out, and he looked like the one who might have a shot against McCain.
McCain would be a gigantic disaster for the Republican party, and would almost guarantee a Dem victory in 2012 if he were somehow able to win.
Remember this is a guy who wanted to up the amount of LEGAL immigration from 1 million per year to 3 million per year with no wall mandated. We'd be losing the demographic vote war in the fast lane then instead of the slower lane as now.
Ron Paul doesn't have a chance, Huck is too far behind, Romney......................for all his faults, is our best hope at this juncture.
We need to get behind him (and send him a twenty also).
Florida has really dissapointed me..........................wow.
Miles (#5)
As General McAuliffe would say, "NUTS!"
I'm with Ron Paul into the flames.
I'll keep sending my money and doing my small part for Ron Paul to try to keep the man's ideas out there even if the good doctor himself doesn't have a chance of winning. Send Mitt Romney money? The guy has hundreds of millions. If he wants to buy the presidency, let him use his own.
"In a Clinton v. McCain race, it might be preferable to support Clinton. McCain most certainly would push for amnesty, and he would have the Republican muscle to push for it. Clinton, on the other hand, who only wants to be president, may not even attempt an amnesty bill and, if she did, Republicans would oppose it out of partisan habit."
Certainly Hillary Clinton would know better than to hand Republicans exactly the rib bone they're looking for. Unless they could usher in so may new naturalizations that the remnants of the U.S.A. disappear forever, the 2010 Congressional elections would then be a slaughterhouse.
But it may be assuming too much to argue that McCain would find sufficient support for such a pursuit. George W. Bush couldn't do it even as his popularity was still soaring in early 2004, and McCain was on his side, then, too.
#4..............I think it was Jefferson that said, "Democracy only works with an informed voter.".....................I sent John McCain an e-mail during the S-2611 "McCain/Kennedy/Bush" Amnesty for all love fest, explaining that I WOULD NEVER VOTE FOR HIM, and I mean't it! I would vote PUTIN first!
As for the next Bush President: Keep an eye on the Hispanic son of Jeb Bush.(George P. Bush).......He is the darling of the hispanic community, which will be controling our elections in the future.......And fully expect ANOTHER attack prior to the general election.(Even though it would be in the terrorist groups best intrest to play down terrorism.)........But, Americans need to believe that McCain can save them!(That Bagdad Embassy that looks like disney world is not being built to abandon.)
Rublev's Dog @ 6
"As General McAuliffe would say, “NUTS!”
I’m with Ron Paul into the flames."
Only a Chronicles reader could find the right balance of humor and grit in these Orwellian times. It reminded me of another similar quote from Belleau Wood for young Paulists of today : "Retreat hell ! We just got here."
From article:
"California is a progressive state where race is less likely to be a handicap."
Nonwhites in America are encouraged to organize along racial lines, to follow racially defined leaders and to discriminate when in their ethnic interests. The tendency for this is not less in California.
But whites throughout America have been taught the virtues of being deracinated and racially emasculated.
So, apparently the whites there are suffeciently deracinated to vote purely along ideological lines.
McCain is the Dr. Strangelove candidate. Having him anywhere near the nuclear button is terrifying. He's got to be stopped.
Romney and Paul may have to join forces and proclaim themselves a ticket if that's what it takes. Paul might as well settle for VP since it beats anything else he's likely to get.
Dr. Roberts is reviving the analysis from the Clinton years that the Clinton's will eschew any grand policies in favor of minor victories so as not to inflame the "angry white male" (as they did to their chagrin in 1994). But Mr. Moses is likely correct that no President will push through the amnesty plan successfully. Only if a McCain is able to buy of the "movement right" (not an expensive proposition of course) could he succesfully do that.
Huck and McCain are in a tacit (or express, if secret) agreement to block Romney and deliver the nomiation to McCain. There is no reason for Huck to stay in the race now (without money and a distant showing in FL) except to block Romney. It'll be McCain and Huck as the candidates (with "Endless War" as their motto).
So our choices will very likely be between Evita and Gen. Lemay.
Yeesh. Who's running for the Constitution Party?
Or maybe I'll just write in Ron Paul. Or maybe I'll just go to work that day and skip the whole thing.
The America I identify with has lost so many elections that I can't imagine one more or less would make a difference. Son of Cain or Wife of Bill, who cares? I sure don't.
Ron Paul opposes immigration? How does that square with his libertarian beliefs? Granting his wonderful persoal story, I cannot see how McCain is any different from any other politician. He tries to fool the rubes whenever he can, especially when it comes to immigration. He talks enforcement now -- because it is politic to do do -- but he also says that he will sign a McCain-Kennedy-type immigration bill as President, presumably after governors, to fool the rubes, have "certified" border security. It is the typical Washington two-step: proclaim border security while refusing to fund the building of a fence. Mexico has the effrontery to complain about the "immigration" of returning Mexicans. I favor a nationalist candidate, but Ron Paul and his neo-Nazi tolerant campaign is not the answer. Fred Thompson was, but he had been driven from the campaign as being too "lazy" and lacking "fire in the belly." Hillary has "fire in the belly," if only acid reflux from putting up with Bill's humiliations, but is that what we really want?
Funny, in a poignant sort of way.
Bill Wilder wrote: "Yeesh. Who’s running for the Constitution Party?"
The Constitution Party has no candidate this year, Mr. Wilder. I'm proud to say that I bear no responsibility whatsoever for Mr. Bush, as I voted CP in the last two elections. This time, however, because there is no CP candidate, my decision will be more difficult. I believe it's a dereliction of duty to abstain, so I'm obliged to vote for someone. I'll probably end up just writing in a name, since the likely candidates in the major parties are too far away from me to be worthy of my vote, and those from the other minor parties are even more wacky, if that's possible.
JoeMorgan wrote: "But whites throughout America have been taught the virtues of being deracinated and racially emasculated."
Racially emasculated? I'm not even sure what that means, Mr Morgan. If it means not focusing on race as a major factor in politics, then that's not something someone taught me, it's something I've come to on my own (I'm a Californian, but not a robot). Please note that I do believe there exist biological differences between the races, but I also believe they are not of the kind that ought to make much, if any, difference in the law. I also, along with Aristotle, believe in the existence of natural slaves. A slave is one who is not capable of governing himself. I believe such people exist--in great quantities these days, actually--but that they are not determined by race or skin color; they are determined by moral infancy and corruption. I don't see any essential connection between race and morality, so I reject any implication that political determinations should be made on the basis of race. They should be made on the basis of moral fitness. In that much at least, I think Martin Luther King was right.
(This should not be interpreted as a condemnation of the pre-1960's South, btw. The situation then and there was much more complicated due to various historical factors. But today, I see no compelling reason to play the race game, even if others are doing it. It is illicit to employ evil means even for a good end.)
T. French wrote: "The America I identify with has lost so many elections that I can’t imagine one more or less would make a difference. Son of Cain or Wife of Bill, who cares? I sure don’t."
Indeed. It makes no difference whatsoever. Even if Ron Paul were elected, his actual ability to carry through effectively on his program is constrained by law. By "effectively" I mean "permanently." Any change to the existing structure of government--i.e. highly centralized, consolidated, national government lording it over emasculated, submissive states--would have to come about via constitutional amendment, which falls within the jurisdiction of the legislature, not the executive branch. Beyond that, any changes he made would be temporary and likely reversed under subsequent Presidents.
There are reasons beyond the stupidity of the American people for the direction America invariably heads in, no matter what we try or what we do. This is a highly neglected point that needs to be paid some heed. There will be no Prince Charming riding in to fix things for us, because it is not within Prince Charming's power to change the law. That power belongs to Congress, and it is certain Constitutional laws, introduced in the wake of the Civil War, that are keeping us down. We need to start talking seriously about either repealing/amending those laws via the amendment process or dissolving the Union. There are really no other choices.
"This is bad news for Obama, because California is a progressive state where race is less likely to be a handicap."
Race a handicap? For a black person? For Obama? If he were white we would never have even heard of Barack Obama.
Rublev's Dog:
To paraphrase Gen. McAuliffe, "Baloney!"
I'm with the Good Doc to the end also.
Re: 15
"I favor a nationalist candidate, but Ron Paul and his neo-Nazi tolerant campaign is not the answer."
I see the propaganda worked on you.
I say OBAMA - !!!!!!!!!!!! Yes!
lizard lady - crocodile tears or not - NO!!!!!!
I say OBAMA !!!!!!!!! OBAMA !!!!!!!!!!!!
I say -
I ain't gonna save Ya'mama -
i'm going OBAMA
throw mama -
it's time for truth to remain -
from the train .....
OBAMA !
(and Oprah - if she can lose some weight again... don't be Hard on our eyes - Oprah...
be like trim - OBAMA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! )
even if he smokes tobacco in private on occasion GOOD !!!!!!!!
OBAMA !!!!!!!!!!!
(i just found out like steve martin i'm the albino child of black parents... than G-d!)
OBAMA !!!!!!!!!!
What propaganda? Did Ron Paul not take money from people associated with "Stormfront"? Did he even go through the motion of donating the money to charity or returning it? I did not say that his campaign was Nazi, only that he was too tolerant of neo-Nazis -- too tolerant menas that he took their money without complaint. If he did not take their money, let me know. His answer to all this was that he takes money from many sources, and it does not mean he "agrees" with them. As a matter of political hygiene, no one on the right should knowingly take such money.
#22 - Ridiculous! Ron Paul is supposed to know the associations of all of his tens of thousands of donors? And what exactly does it mean to be "associated" with Stormfront? One suspects that the donation was made and then the association revealed precisely for the purpose of smearing Dr. Paul and his campaign.
Wow! All you guys really are NUTS!