Category Archives: Essays

Does anybody realize what alternating dynasties and revolving door presidencies say about our country? I think that our history, our country, and the world deserve so much better.

Unfortunately because we’re in the primaries, a certain degree of decorum (and party loyalty) impedes Obama from raising this fundamental question about the state of the American democracy when the role call of four consecutive presidents could potentially be “Bush Clinton Bush Clinton”.

I am trying to change course, but I just can’t give it a break. I promise I will do better, but it’s just that I was reading these lines from an article in The Economist,

In a remarkable exercise in doublethink she claimed on one of the Sunday talk shows that “you have a woman running to break the highest and hardest glass ceiling. I don’t think either of us wants to inject race or gender in this campaign. We’re running as individuals”.

The other reason why the debate will continue is that the Clintons’ main aim at the moment is to drive up Mr Obama’s “negatives”. They desperately need to reverse polls that show that, despite his failure in New Hampshire, Mr Obama is picking up support in a large swathe of demographic groups.

This will involve attacking his political record and picking apart his personal biography (it is striking that two Clinton supporters have already brought up Mr Obama’s admitted cocaine use). None of this is likely to go down well with Americans who regard Mr Obama as one of the most talented politicians of his generation, and who hope that he will become America’s first black president.

The first part of the quote simply shows the Clintons’ love for double-talk and pretty-sounding contradictions. But the second part reminds me of how the Clintons were always so enraged whenever their characters or pasts were brought into question. And whenever that happened, they always blamed the inquiries on some “vast right-wing conspiracy” to shame and undermine them.

So if the Clintons’ goal is to now do to Obama what the Republicans tried to do to them, then I suppose, by logical deduction, there is now a “vast Clinton-wing conspiracy” against Obama. If Shakespeare were alive today.

I will try to give this whole topic a nice, long breather for a while, but please indulge this addtional post on why I am in favor of Obama and against what I see as the tiresome legacy of Hillary and the Clintons, as if they were a once fashionable but now long-outdated 50’s pop group.

The farce of the Hillary New Hampshire comeback is something that I still can’t quite understand. How someone who has been in the lead for months, has 35 years of both real and derivative experience, has former president Bill Clinton campaigning for her, and has the most sophisticated campaign team in the world can only pull off a two point win in pale white New Hampshire is astonishing. It is much more of a shocking loss than a comeback victory.

There are even some conspiracy theorists out there who believe that the final New Hampshire results were related to computer error or to voter fraud. I won’t go there, but I will say that Hillary and Bill are besides themselves that a neophyte like Obama would even think of posing an obstacle Hillary’s presidency. It is even claimed that Bill is “furious, outraged, angry and utterly dismissive of Obama” for challenging Hillary’s entitlement.

So to give it a little rest (I know ReWrite is growing bored with the elections), here is Christopher Hitchens’ “Case Against Hillary” (thanks, William): Continue reading →

In his op-ed “A Hand the Clinton’s Aren’t Showing” today in the Washington Post, Eugene Robinson mirrored my concern for Hillary’s use of race as play to get whitie to stop supporting Obama.

Is it possible that accusing Obama and his campaign of playing the race card might create doubt in the minds of the moderate, independent white voters who now seem so enamored of the young, black senator? Might that be the idea?

Yes, that’s a cynical view. But history is history.

You can’t put anything by these old skoolers.

The Clintons always know exactly what they are doing, at least when they are losing. Hillary claims she is the best qualified candidate (and its entitled to the presidency) because she has 35 years of experience, including 8 years of derivative or vicarious presidential experience (it makes you wonder whether the Constitution should prohibit more than 2 terms of derivative presidential mandates). You’d wonder why if someone who’s ready for day-one at the White House has to wait for 35 years to get to New Hampsire to find her voice.

In any event, plenty has been said the last couple of days about Hillary’s comments regarding Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and President Johnson and then about Bill’s belittling of Obama’s candidacy (and all those who suport him) as a mere “fairy tale”. Is someone stirring the race issue? The interesting thing, to date, is that Obama is running as a “change candidate” not as a black candidate and not on a minority-centric platform. Continue reading →

This morning I watched the images of Hillary in New Hampsire, emotional and teary-eyed, explaining that it wasn’t easy being Hillary Clinton and that she couldn’t do it if she didn’t “passionately believe it was the right thing to do”. The reason why she is running for president is because, in her own words, “I see so many opportunities for this country, I just don’t want to see us fall backwards . . . You know, this is very personal for me. It’s not just political. It’s not just public. I see what’s happening, and we have to reverse it.”

Yes, Hillary is smarter than the rest of us all, and she sees what is happening in the country, and only Hillary can reverse it. Continue reading →

The news today from Iowa is outstanding. Regardless of who you want to win the elections, the fact than an African American wins the Democratic Iowa Caucus is a historical landmark in the United States. Furthrmore, Obama took 38% of the votes in a 95% white state like Iowa with almost 10 percentage points above the Clinton campaign machine with all of its experience and expertise.

This is something to make you proud to be American. Time will tell whether Obama can continue the momentum against the Clinton powerhouse, but the times have definitely changed and are changing. Think about it.

Back in 1992, Bill Clinton gave a political lesson on how to win an election. When running against an incumbent, most candidates make the mistake of attacking or complaing about the incumbent. The problem is that most people are turned-off by complainers and whiners. That was where Bill succeeded. His argument was change and his whole campaign was about how voting for him would be a positive change for the country, and this was highly successful retoric.

Now in 2007 and 2008, Barak Obama is the new Bill Clinton. He is arguing for change and being the change candidate. On the other hand, Hillary is arguing that the country needs a president with experience who doesn’t need on the job training. But back in 1992, Bush Sr. was much more experienced than Bill and arguably more experienced than Hillary is today. If we followed through with Hillary’s logic (and if it were constitutionally permissible), Americans should vote for Bush Jr. again, as he is more experienced than Hillary herself.

So what is so different about these elections than those back in 1992? Does the United States need a more experienced president in these elections than it needed back in 92? Change vs. experience, then and now. A Barak Obama is who a Bill Clinton figure for change verus a Hillary Clinton who is a Bush figure for experience in office. What do we want? Continue reading →