So what do I think of the Democrats?

I have a confession to make. I really like Joe Biden. I went to school with his son (the Attorney General of Delaware), and while I did not know him well, we did have a passing acquaintance. Back when I lived in Washington, I met the Senator on a few alumni occasions, even once having lunch with him. Unlike most politicians I have met, he is interesting, has a personality and interests outside of politics.

In fact, belying the fact that Biden has been a career politician, politics seemed very secondary to him. To me that is a mark in his favor, as I worry that too many people feel that politics (and government) is the font of all that is good and holy in this world.

I also find him to be a real adult and a serious person. His does have a reputation for shooting his mouth off, but again, I think that is because he is not a politicians that measures everything he says against a focus group.

Politically, he is something of a through back to the "old" pre-McGovern Democratic Party. You could label him a "Scoop Jackson Democrat" or maybe better as the old Catholic Democrats that dominated the party in the North East until the late 1960s. Does he bring anything to the ticket? He brings a wealth of foreign policy experience and a lot of gravitas. I do worry that we would be in the same situation as with Cheney and Bush in 2001, namely that President Obama might essentially fob off lots of national security issues to Biden.

But all in all, Barrack Obama could have done far worse.

Did she say that?

Did Maxine Waters really suggest that the oil companies should be nationalized?




I am not sure she was serious about that, but maybe that explains why the Decemberists played for Senator Obama at his last campaign rally in Oregon -- they were playing our new national anthem.

Enjoying the Show

The reason I am enjoying the Democratic primary so much is that this is 40 years of Democratic Party victim identity politics coming home to roost.

"Vote the Woman!"

"No Vote the African American!"

"And you are not voting for me because you dislike [insert victim group here]!"

All we need is a transgendered Latino to complain that it is really his (or is it her) group's turn.

Post Racialism

While I was never an Obama supporter, my hope for his campaign was that it would further along the cause of "post racialism." Face it -- race has been an albatross around America's neck since before the founding. Far too much is seen in the prism of race. And race has left America with a legacy of bitterness and anger with respect to 11 percent of our population.

Most major black politicians come to prominence through the traditional civil rights leadership. As such, for good or ill, they are too connected to the racial divide to really fight it, even when they run for office under the banner of black empowerment.

I hoped that Obama would transcend race (I have always seen him as the liberal yuppie candidate, not the black candidate) mostly because he did not have the usual path that most black leaders had. His father was not the descendant of southern slaves, but rather was born a subject of the British crown. His mother was white, and from a comfortable middle class background.

Obama lived for a while outside the US. When here, he lived in the least "white" state in the US and went to a somewhat exclusive school. So for good or ill, all the baggage, cultural and historical, positive and negative, that gets attached to the previous generations of black leaders did not get attached to him.

In some ways it was the same with Collin Powell. Powell's parents were Jamaican immigrants, not native US blacks. He went to West Point and was immersed in the military culture. Hence he was able to be himself, without reference to almost 400 years of the black experience in America.

That is what I really hope for Obama -- that he loses the presidency, not because he is half black, but because people decide he is not the one for the job (in the same way HRC lost the Democratic nomination, not because she is a woman but because people thought Obama was better). Yes there are lots of people who will not vote for him because he is black. But many others (white and black) will vote for him because he is.

Will Obama be that post racial transformational character? That is a lot to ask someone and probably very unfair, as he is trying to run for President and be himself. In light of the Wright fiasco, I am not sure we are there yet. But I think we are getting closer.

Some proof?

The daughter of the President of the United States gets married, the minister is black, and no one really notices! (Well, the Anchoress did and her reaction was the same as mine)

West Virginia

It was over so quickly I did not even have a chance to mix my martini!

Democracy!

My numbers were off a "little" (OK Bill and Rob -- a whole lot!)

But I still will not be surprised if the Democratic nominee is Al Gore.

My Prediction for Primary Day

HRC wins Indiana by 5-10%.

Obama wins North Carolina by less than 5%.

Delegates are evenly split.

And the winner is . . .

AL GORE!

The Wright Fiasco

For the past three weeks or so, we have been bombarded with commentary about Reverend Wight. Should we care? Why do we care. It is important given that Senator Obama claimed Wight was his mentor and spiritual guide for 20 years. The title of his book, "The Audacity of Hope", comes from one of Wright's sermons. This is more than someone who simply attended church on Sundays.

We seem to care, should we? I don't know. I am somewhat sympathetic to Reverend Wright as the angry black man of the 1960s, angry at racism and the "system" that kept blacks from fully participating in America. But he went beyond that. Calling for his parishioners to reject "middle classism" while running a church that even Senator Obama admits has a reputation as something of a "buppie" church.

The Wright situation has been brewing for a long time. I remember noting to a friend (who was working for one of Obama's Democratic Senate race rivals in 2004) that Wright could be a problem for Obama. Of course, in 2004, Obama sailed thorough thanks to his opponents in both parties self destructing. So the issue is only being raised now.

And Wright refuses to go quietly. This makes we wonder if Wright is trying to do this on purpose. I know I am not the only person thinking this, Spike Lee has muttered some vague conspiracy theory.

So why is Wright doing this? Wright was known but not a huge player here in Chicago compared to other ministers. Wright built a very impressive congregation on the South Side (and to be sure does a lot of good) but he was a local figure. Now, thanks to all the controversy, he is a national figure.

This could torpedo Senator Obama's chances. But if he gets past Denver, he will be happy it happened now, and not in October.

Hilllary or Bust!

The blogosphere is alive with the sounds of everyone trying to figure out just what is going on with the Democrats. I suggest heading over to one of my favorite blogs, Ragged Thots, for some excellent analysis and discussion.

So why Hillary or bust (as my regular Rodak put it a few weeks ago)? It seems that the only HRC supporter in my neighborhood is also an Elvis fan. The HRC sign is next to a bust of Elvis (sorry for the bad photo, it was taken with my camera phone).

I am still trying to figure if there is any cosmic significance to this.

Another Primary Night?

I'll take the usual please!

It's 3 a.m.

And Hillary Clinton is considering firing her ad agency.

Granted, I am a McCain supporter, but WHO thought this ad was a good idea. Just leaving aside for a moment the merits of what should be done about the foreclosure issue. But why would someone call the president at three in the morning to talk about foreclosures? Personally, I think it can wait until after breakfast. It is not like Citibank just launched a WMD at Cleveland. (HT: The Corner)

Obama as Maud'dib

And how can this be? For he is the Kwisatz Haderach!

Yes, I am a geek and you have to be one to find this funny. (HT to Vodka Pundit)

Where have all the leftists gone?

My cyber friend Rodak, in response to my post regarding the Buckley – Vidal commentaries during 1968 wonders (and I am paraphrasing here) where have all the leftists gone? At least, why aren't any of them appearing on TV these days?

Let it be noted that despite the supposed "liberal bias" of the MainStreamMedia, figures on the true left are never seen on mainstream television. If not for C-SPAN, figures like Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn would never be on TV at all. All of the neocons, and the rest of Wm. F. Buckley's spawn, by contrast, are on constantly. There are still left-wingers alive in the wild, but you have to seek them out for yourself; they are not brought to you free of charge by the MSM, as are the generations of Kristols and Podhoretzes.

And I have to agree with him, though I believe for slightly a different reason than he probably does. I believe a big part of it is how you view politics in America – is it left v. right or Democrats v. GOP? While the Democrats are the left and the GOP the right, those two possibilities are not really the same thing.

The conservative movement has been connected with the GOP since 1964. While there are dissenters (Pat Buchanan being the most prominent), most professional conservatives are seen as somehow surrogates for the GOP. This is not the case with the professional leftists, such as Chomsky and Zinn. Neither of those two could ever be considered surrogates for the Democratic Party. So considering the realities of our two-party system, in order to appear relevant, the media wants to have is a Democrat debating a Republican. They cannot fit into this dichotomy a debate between, say the left wing Chomsky and a libertarian such as Justin Raimondo.

A second problem is the decline of the "public intellectual." And by that, I mean someone who has a wide range of interests and knowledge and is not simply a specialist trying to discuss a narrow field or a political hack trying to score points. No matter what your thoughts on Buckley's or Vidal's politics, they both were polished intellectuals who could make an argument by reference to history and were well versed in high culture. Is there really anyone who can fit that mold today?

Looking at CNN's coverage of mini Tuesday, it seemed to me that the panelists were either political types or journalists. Bill Kristol was also there to be sure. But the debate was being framed as GOP v. Obama supporters v. Clinton supporters. In the general election it will be framed as GOP v. Democrat. So you will find a few GOP pundits and political types and have them face off against a few Democratic pundits and politics types. And the discussion will unfortunately be somewhat superficial and center around scoring points, rather than debating ideas.

McCain in! Democrats still arguing

Who would have thought back last Fall, we would be here now. That the GOP would be set really since Super Tuesday and the Democrats fighting out increasingly ugly?

McCain gave a very good and gracious speech. He cannot go toe to toe with Obama on style, so he has to appeal to something deeper. I am biased of course, but I think he is doing that. And I know, with things still a mess on the Democrats side, he is smiling widely tonight.

A rather unfortunate screenshot

I know it is getting ugly between Obama and HRC, but this is sad.

I approve this message!

Tell the truth, when you saw this for the first time, you expected it to be a McCain ad.



I think all McCain supporters owe Hillary Clinton a thank you for reminding us why we support McCain for president.

(HT to Ann Althouse and IMAO)

Desperation!

Clinton surrogates apparently have been circulating a photo of Obama in Kenyan "elder" garb. HRC should never try and make fun of the anyone else on the planet was garbed.

What is that thing on her right shoulder? Oh, sorry, that is the future President Clinton.

(Somewhere there is a picture of me at 9, as an usher at my uncle's wedding. I am wearing a beige tuxedo, with a puffy shirt. Guys, it was the 70s.)

(HT to Vodka Pundit for the story, the picture and the snarky comment)

Bob Hope Explains Politics

Bob Hope explains everything.

And now for something completely different

Question: How many Obama supporters does it take to change a light bulb?

Answer: None, because when Obama becomes president, light bulbs will change themselves.

Welcome denizens of the Derb. This is my very first “Derbalanche” and I invite you to look around, and comment that I have no clue what I am talking about!

And a hello to friends of John in North Carolina!

Obama's Supporters

Instapundit links to a San Francisco Chronicle opinion piece which notes that Barrack Obama, considered very liberal, is becoming the favorite of the hedge fund crowd. The author of the piece seems somewhat concerned that this is "hush money", so that Obama, once elected, will not engage in the progressive policies he promised.

To me, this is not surprising. Since Obama began his race, my take is that he is not "the progressive candidate" or "the black candidate." Rather, from Obama is the "liberal yuppie candidate." Last summer, I articulated this view to a friend who I would consider a liberal yuppie. Her response was, "well, we ARE the Democratic Party now."

Granted, there are lots of ways to look at the Clinton – Obama battle. It may be partially racial, in that Obama does well in states with few blacks and lots of blacks, but not ones with some blacks. Or it may be class based, a battle between the old Democratic Party (the "beer drinkers" supporting Clinton) and the new Democratic Party (the "wine drinkers" supporting Obama). But the better answer is that it is too complicated to reduce to such simplistic formulae.

Still, when yuppies look at Obama, they see one of them (or us – my wife says I am a yuppie too!)