The Last Post on the Bugle

Chuck Norris long ago endorsed Mike Huckabee, today, Sylvester Stallone followed suit and endorsed John McCain. Every republican needs a two-bit action star backing his nomination. Who will be next? My prediction: Wesley Snipes to endorse Ron Paul.
Just a wild stab in the dark…

Bill is an aging bear, tortured, constantly negotiating between unhealthy passions and predatorial political instincts. Willing to claw his way back home, Bill eats, fornicates, screams, eulogises, threatens, convicts, decries, scolds until he grows splotchyfaced. Then, all of a sudden, in the darkest of places, overwhelmed by his impulses, the animal collapses.

“At the end of the event, a man yelled out to Obama that he will be a better president than George Bush. Obama responded, “So would you!”
- CBS News

Besides being a muddled primary election, this season’s GOP race, has also been a contest of which candidate can best hijack the legacy of Ronald Reagan. Reagan was the GOP’s last successful president, especially when seen in contrast with the two most recent republican presidential miscarriages. Fiscally conservative, morally completely bankrupt, socially utterly unconscientious; Reagan’s policies (and personality) still serve conservative politicians as a blueprint for their own miserable platforms. George W. Bush himself, crept out of the slime of this hateful ideology, but so did Bill Clinton.

Obama’s recent monologue on Reagan’s presidency, contains a few sentences that could well be understood as praise for the gipper, for this I condemn him! Once my great disappointment for Obama slowly melted into slick cynicism, I revisited his little speech, and found that, despite the sentence that can be read as praise for Reagan, I don’t disagree.

“I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not.”

Besides skillfully positioning Big Willy next to the equally impeachable Richard Nixon, Obama makes a valid point: Reagan’s presidency, for worse or worse, had much more of a lasting effect on American politics than Clinton’s. For one, Reagan had more of an effect on American politics today than Clinton, because Clinton himself was a continuation of Reagan.
Much in the same way Tony Blair’s policies were an (ever-so-slightly) more socially conscious continuation of Thatcher’s work, Clinton was a continuation of Reagan’s legacy. Clinton’s was a neo-liberal platform, a program of free-trade, deregulation and small government. Clinton submitted welfare, budget and tax bills in the Autumn of his presidency, further completing the Reagan revolution.

What the media have described as Obama’s praise for the gipper, is a most superficial account of Reagan’s presidency and his lasting popularity, “he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.” Obama, of course, doesn’t go into any detail, because this loose definition of Reagan is just general and empty enough for Obama to creep into, like Hannibal Lectar slipping into a disemboweled human carcus. This is cheap, but could be effective in wooing Californian voters, who, for some reason or another, still feel sentimental about the Gipper. At the same time, Obama seeks to destroy the battlefield he can’t win on; he doesn’t want the last successful democratic presidency to serve as an orientation point for democratic candidates and voters in the same way that Reagan’s administration serves for the GOP. Hence, Obama’s awkward differentiation.

The primaries are a game of chess. After Hillary successfully provoked Obama into “playing the race card” (the coverage of these unfortunate events, by the way, are an excellent testament to the state of racism in this country), Obama is trying to make Bill play “angry old man”. Because, every time Bill feels attacked, he becomes red-faced, splotchy and says something unfortunate, further chipping away at his positive legacy. Bill, in his old age, is the true renagade of the Clinton camp, he seems prone to forgetting campaign strategies, instead relying on political instincts – instincts that nowadays seem clouded by senility and temperament.

Besides the validity of Obama’s argument, I hope that in the future he will refrain from participating in such tastless acts of political necrophilia. If Obama feels like comparing someone to Reagan. he should compare Hillary. She has played the race card as skillfully as Reagan in 1980; just overt enough to catch people’s attention, and just minute enough to shrug off.

For some reason, in this country, success has the immense ability to vindicate a public person instantly. In America, success proves you right, regardless of your wrongdoings. That is why Ronald Reagan is considered such a great president, despite his racist presidential campaign of 1980.

The same blogs that have been spanking Hillary Clinton for her ruthless attack campaign against Obama in New Hampshire (much of it with nauseating racial undertones), are now ruefully bowing their heads to the senator from New York. How does one do that? How does one negotiate such ideological changes of heart with one’s own morals? I don’t understand.

Hillary won New Hampshire, and there is nothing honorable about her victory. American “liberals”, for some reason, have bought into the narrative that if the conservatives attack someone, that person must be worthy of “our” defense, especially a Clinton. I hate to say it, but even the conservatives, the Chris Matthews’ of the world, get it right once in a while, and they are right about Hillary, even if they are no better. She is an opportunist, she will do anything to get elected, recklessly endangering her opponents chances of winning the general election in the process. It isn’t about the people, it isn’t about “what’s right”, its about her personal success, that much she has proven.

Women came out to vote for Hillary. Not surprising, in light of the popular narrative she has woven over the last few days, of being just another woman, fighting for recognition in a man’s world. It started off with the debate, where she fought two men, amongst them, John Edwards, a heroic liberal who is unfortunately inclined to dropping the odd chauvinistic sound-bite. Only 2 days later, far behind in the polls, she broke into tears, lamenting the immense pressure of the working world in a New Hampshire neighbourhood kaffeeklatsch. The question was very convenient, “”How do you get out the door every day? I mean, as a woman, I know how hard it is to get out of the house and get ready. Who does your hair?,” a woman, outside of the camera’s margins asked. With camera’s flashing on her face, Hillary choked up, croaking “it’s not easy” as the television camera zoomed in on her face. The news media, the media considered so hostile to Hillary, didn’t question the moment’s authenticity. Except, Fox News, who, with unsurprising vitriol, laid into the weeping candidate. Liberal blogs, jumped to her defense, despite their issues with the moral deficiencies of her campaign. At the time, I didn’t think voters would buy it, but it now seems that they did. Only a day later, two men, quite conveniently I think, showed up at a Clinton campaign rally, holding “iron my shirt” placards. Call me cynical, but if the campaign itself didn’t explicitly design this course of events, they fell into place quite neatly, and just in time.

Now, I am not denying that there is an obvious element of sexism to the right-wing’s hate of Hillary. I think such sentiment is distasteful, I don’t, however, think that these unreasonable attacks should awake sympathy for a candidate who so freely deals in prejudice herself. She hit Obama for supporting an end to mandatory minimum sentences for federal crimes, a flaw in the judicial system that leads to disproportionate incarceration of black males. What’s more, she has pledged support for the same measure, in the past. This was, of course, more subtle than other racially-tinged attacks emanating from the Hilary campaign. These include, the circulation of an email accusing Obama of being a “Muslim” (my, oh my, a MUSLIM!), and the repeated questioning of Obama’s past by Clinton’s aides, wondering aloud, “When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?’” The racial OVERTONES of such attacks should not be ignored.

So, now when I read “liberal” blogs coming to terms (Huffpo), or even worse, voicing their enthusiasm (TPM, C&L), for a Hillary nomination, I am heavily reminded of the free pass given to Ronald Reagan by the mainstream press. Success proves them both right, despite both of their racially-charged campaigns.

The American left deserves Hillary Clinton, and as a result, also deserves John McCain, or Mike Huckabee. You are as immoral, as opportunistic as the candidates who you accept as your own. Good Riddance.

In what appears to be a desperate attempt to appeal to overworked Female Voters, Hillary Clinton became all teary-eyed in front of a bunch of flashing cameras this morning. I think the question of whether this was staged (it was) is utterly beside the point, the question is, will it be effective? Personally, I think this is another example of Hillary’s campaign thoroughly underestimating democratic voters. The cameras flashing on her face gives the whole affair the air of a Tonya Harding press conference. Unfortunately distasteful.

I am not going to say I knew this was going to happen, but I did write that it would. If you had been following this blog you wouldn’t be suprised:

“Much like the promqueen from the beforementioned 80s teen comedy, I see Hillary throwing an embarassing fit it if she doesn’t receive the nomination.”
LDB, 11/26/2007, It’s my party and I’ll cry if I want to.

Anybody who has been following this election cycle on the “television set”, will have noticed that pundits bestow the honour of being “famously opposed to negative campaigns” on the voters of virtually any state quite liberally. Negative campaigns have been very successful in the past (in Texas, for instance, the most horrendous smear campaigns have proven frighteningly effective), but, to state the obvious: not all attack campaigns are equal. When Hillary attacks, she doesn’t do herself any favours.

An Obama attack, for instance, consists of the fresh-faced junior senator respectfully lumping his opponent into the corner of outdated, divisive, cynical politics, that the country doesn’t need at this crucial time – the kind of attack that makes you feel all warm inside. When Obama takes off his gloves, for lack of a better metaphor, he is wearing a fuzzy pair of mittens underneath them.

Hillary, on the other hand, as her campaign never tires of pointing out, is battle-tested, battle-hardened, battle-hungry, ready to battle it out with 100 million dollars in her battle chest. Hillary was in the White House during one of the worst periods of mudslinging and remorseless political throttling America has seen, but the lessons she has drawn from that period, and the skills she developed in response, have, as of yet, served her badly in this campaign.

Obama, on the other hand, has made good use of Hillary’s willingness to attack. One of the crucial moments of this campaign, as far as I’m concerned, was the Democratic debate of Oct. 31. Before the debate, Hillary was comfortably ahead of Obama in all important states, and Obama promised to draw important distinctions between himself and his opponent. Prior to the occasion, the event was hyped as Obama finally “going on the attack”; what happened was slightly different. Obama did exactly what he said he would, he drew distinctions. John Edwards, on the other hand, laid into Clinton, calling her out on her corporate backing and her Iran vote, amongst other things. Obama had played a very smart hand, it seems, he let Edwards go on the attack, and left Hillary feeling embattled.

Hillary, feeling comfort in her embattlement, reflexively went on the counter-attack in the weeks to come. However, since Edwards, the real aggressor, was never a threat in the polls, she went after Barack Obama. Members of her campaign staff, highlighted Obama’s Muslim background, his admittance to past drug use (drawing connections with his views on the disparity between crack and powder cocaine laws), in what seemed like a coordinated smear campaigns of made and withdrawn statements (withdrawn attack statements were to become one of the main political trends this election season).

The attacks were counterproductive, especially among the black electorate. Hillary’s advisers honourable mentions of Obama’s Muslim background, and their allegations that Obama might also have “dealt drugs” during his teenage years, were widely seen as racist. This can’t have appealed to the very liberal voters in Iowa either, it occurs to me. During this period of attacks, Obama remained calm, and, more than ever, stuck to his positive and hopeful shtick; he stayed above the fray and created a very favourable climate for himself.

Despite what the sensationalist media might say, this campaign is still an uphill battle for Obama. Until Obama wins New Hampshire, this is still Hillary’s race to lose. Fortunately for Obama, Hillary’s campaign is preparing to “get nasty” (at least according to Hillary’s top aide, the unbelievably pigheaded Mark Penn). This comes as somewhat of a surprise, after what seemed like an attempt at dignity and humility in her concession speech after the Iowa caucus yesterday.

Unless Hillary’s camp has any substantial new dirt on Obama, this battle cry from within her ranks looks like the prolonged use of a failed strategy. Obama has high positive ratings, voters won’t appreciate another smear campaign against him, to the contrary, such a campaign might well feed his “different type of politics” gimmick, if he manages to stay above the fray. When Hillary’s campaign takes off its gloves, it harms itself. The gloves on her campaign, are similar to the gloves put on patients on suicide watch; you know… the gloves you can’t hold razorblades with.

If he doesn’t have any residual skeletons in his closet, Obama must really Hope that Hillary does indeed go after him.

Now, I don’t want to sound overenthusiastic. I do want Obama to win, I am, however, not as enthusiastic about his candidacy as I was just half a year ago. His stance on Social Security is borderline neo-conservative, his healthcare plan isn’t entirely universal, however (one of those loud british HOWEVERs), he is definitly the lesser evil, and more than that.
There are many reasons to hope that Obama wins.

1) He isn’t “the corporate candidate”
Nader is entirely accurate when he describes Clinton as “the Corporate Candidate”. Clinton has raised more money from Washington lobbyists than any other candidate in the race, Republican or Democrat. Clinton has raised more money from the health industry (insurance companies and drug companies) than any candidate in the race, Republican or Democrat. Obama, on the other hand, raised all of his campaign money from private citizens, much of it small donations. This alone, is a good reason to vote for Obama, he doesn’t owe anything to big business, and hence, will enjoy more maneuverability than Clinton if he wins the presidency, even on health care.

2) He can deliver a strong majority in senate and congress
I think that, despite what Paul Krugman says, there is something to be said for avoiding a divisive candidate in this election. Especially if the candidate in question creates discord with personality and name alone, and not policies. A candidate like Obama, who so appeals to Independents (and even some republicans) is much more likely to help the democrats win senatorial and congressional seats, than a divisive candidate like Clinton. Winning a strong majority in the senate and congress, would make it easier to pass legislation and reverse much of the damage done to the constitution by the Bush administration. Hillary with her high negatives, is, despite what many democrats think, a worse bet for the general election* , but also less likely to deliver a strong majority in senate and congress. Incidentally, (something my friend MK finds especially surprising) polls suggest that Edwards would be the safest bet for the general election, and the candidate most likely to deliver a wide majority in senate and congress. Democrats, unfortunately, are oblivious to such polls (or computer illiterate), and Edwards has little chance to transform a win in Iowa to a cruise to candidacy.

3) His Face
Now, a lot has been written about this subject. Andrew Sullivan wrote a suprisingly sane and decent piece on why Obama is the best candidate for president. Besides mentioning Obama’s potential as a unifer, his disconnect from the culture wars of the 1990s, Sullivan ruminated on the power of Obama’s face, and what a great message it would send to the world. Sullivan suggested, correctly I think, that an Obama presidency would change America’s image in the third world, more specifically the Middle East.

“Consider this hypothetical. It’s November 2008. A young Pakistani Muslim is watching television and sees that this man—Barack Hussein Obama—is the new face of America. In one simple image, America’s soft power has been ratcheted up not a notch, but a logarithm. A brown-skinned man whose father was an African, who grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii, who attended a majority-Muslim school as a boy, is now the alleged enemy. If you wanted the crudest but most effective weapon against the demonization of America that fuels Islamist ideology, Obama’s face gets close. It proves them wrong about what America is in ways no words can.” Sullivan**

Seymour Hersh echoed this assertion, writing that Obama represents”the only hope for the US in the Muslim world.” I agree with all this, and would like to add something to it; I think Obama’s presidency would send a strong message to the first world, specifically Europe. In November 2005, Time Magazine had a coverstory dedicated to the riots in the Banlieues with a headline that read something like “Message to Europe: Time to Wake up”. At the time, I, as a European, felt this to be correct, yet, to a certain extent, arrogant, because America had its own problems with anti-immigrant sentiment; Minutemen, fox news…
My sentiment of the time, was overly simplistic, and disgustingly continental; America still has much fairer immigration policies than Europe. Having the son of an immigrant as president would be a testament to the potential success of such policies.

European publications, even the very best ones, often have a very limited understanding of American politics and society. Few of these publications have even considered that Obama is a force to be reckoned with in this presidential race (the ones that have, Spiegel.de, have caught on, comfortably late). This has something to do with the beforementioned poor understanding of American politics, but also with a reflexive holier-than thou attitude which, sometimes correctly, reduces America to a supremely powerful, but politically reactionary and culturally backwards society, in continental minds. (Americans often, somewhat simplistically, reduce this sentiment to anti-americanism, or if the speaker in question is especially cowardly and proposterous, anti-semitism.) This European standpoint dictates that a candidate of Obama swarthiness, has no chance of gaining the confidence of a population, that Europeans regard as intrinsically racist. European contempt for American patriotism and institutional racism, often masks their own contempt for their immigrant (muslim) population and their inability and unwillingness to share a society with this population. Minority Rule in the United States, would force Europe to come to terms with being the prime bastion of outdated, white, christian stubborness.
An Obama presidency would force Europeans to reconsider their preconceptions about America, and rethink their own image in the world. I hope I’m right.

*http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html
**http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200712/obama

I’m back! Weeks of coughing up essays and blood hindered me from blogging, but no more, I tell you!

The Iowa Caucus is tommorow, and since it’s all up in the air, I will refrain from making predictions.

If Romney doesn’t win Iowa, then McCain looks the likely candidate for the Republicans, leaving Huckabee with an outside chance. If Huck takes Iowa, which the Demoines Register thinks he will, then it will be up to republican voters to prove themselves backward enough to vote for him. As a democrat, once can only hope that they do, because this man is incapable of beating any Democrat in a general election. He is too religious, too radical and too ignorant of the rest of the world for the average American; which is, in itself, quite an achievement. McCain is the one to worry about. The question is, again, whether Republicans can overlook the man’s obvious flaw; that he doesn’t seem to have the stomach to torture terrorists.

Democrats seem to think that Hillary is the safest bet in the general election, polls suggest the opposite. I see McCain having a good chance of beating Hillary, Obama, on the other hand would maul McCain.

Obama vs. McCain would be good for the democrats. Which match-up could possibly present more obvious, advantageous contrasts than this one? Obama vs. McCain, would be old vs. young, effortless vs. tortured (literally), hopeful vs. bitter, anti-war vs. pro-war; it’ll be JFK vs. Nixon all over again. Hillary has none of these advantages.
If he runs against Hillary, McCain will be able to mobilize the Republican base that has so eluded him in the past. Additionally, McCain appeals to independents a great deal. National polls suggest McCain having a 5% edge on Hillary in direct comparison, as of now. Obama draws even with McCain according to the same poll, but, as mentioned before, I can’t see McCain doing very well if they go head to head on the “television set” (McCain).