If Wishes Were Nuts...

Lately, prominent Democrats have come out and tried to exert influence over the Democratic nomination for President. Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid issued a joint statement strongly urging the superdelegates to make their choice as to who they are backing between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama by June. Not to be outdone, former President Jimmy Carter told Hillary Clinton to drop out of the race by June.

Did you find that as funny as I did?

Seriously, do any of these four knuckleheads have any idea that their opinions are just that? For one, the superdelegates do not have a June time limit to make their decisions. If they want, they can wait until the convention to make their decision who to back. And nothing the DNC Chair, the Speaker of the House, and the Senate Majority Leader say will change that. It's their choice, not the choice of party leaders.

Now, onto Carter. I have no love for Hillary Clinton, but having Carter tell her she has to drop out by June is beyond the pale. It's her decision, not yours, Mr. Carter. If she wants to keep running past June and hamstring the party, let her make that choice. Then, you can go back to what you're good at: slandering Israel and meeting with a terrorist group to accomplish nothing.

This begs the question of why these four Democrats felt they had to try to dictate to members of their own party to do what they want. Put simply, all of them have a vested interest in seeing a Democrat win the White House.

- For Pelosi and Reid, it will help keep them in power in Congress since a successful Presidential candidate would buoy Democrats' chances of keeping or expanding their power in the House and Senate. Plus, it would wipe away their many mistakes over the past year or so. A tall order, I know, but backing the party's candidate while retaining hold of Congress would make it happen. Reid, especially, needs Clinton or Obama to win to open up the possibility that Senators can win the White House, but only if they're Democrats. That's some powerful bragging rights there.

- For Dean, it would make him look like a political genius. Although he was heralded as the brains behind the "50 State Initiative" that Democrats rolled out in 2006, it can be argued that the initiative was only partially responsible for the Democrats' success in 2006. The atmosphere was ripe for Republicans to lose, and from a historical perspective, Democrats didn't score an impressive win. They won control of the House and control in name only of the Senate, but they actually won fewer than normal seats. Dean needs a Democrat to win the Presidency so that he can prove to doubters that 2006 wasn't a fluke.

- For Carter, it would stir up hope that a trend started by Bill Clinton would continue. Before Clinton's Presidency, Carter was a non-entity, save to Habitat for Humanity. After Carter seemed to pull Clinton's hash out of the foreign policy fire, Democrats rediscovered Carter and started seeing him as an elder statesman/foreign policy expert. It's a good bet Hillary would draw on Carter's knowledge sooner or later since Bill did, and Obama seems to hold a high regard for Carter. With a Democrat in the White House, Carter could remain viable as an advisor, official or otherwise.

They'll deny any personal stake in the outcome of the Obama/Clinton fight, but they'd be lying. Pelosi, Reid, Dean, and Carter need a Democrat to win for them to be more than footnotes in history. They see the fight between their candidates as hurting their party, but more importantly, hurting their own chances of getting their wishes.

And you know what they say about if wishes were nuts, right?

The Impossible Happened Today

It's not often that something out of the ordinary, nay impossible, happens. But it happened this past weekend into today.

Barack Obama made Hillary Clinton look like a moderate.

I've mentioned Rev. Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers before in this blog, so I won't go into the specifics of their situations. As I also stated in a previous column, the problem is that neither Hillary nor Obama thought the connections they had to members of the Weather Underground were troublesome until they became public knowledge.

Right now, all the media focus is on Wright, with some of the "new media" focusing on the Ayers connection. Even with the public break with Wright, Obama waited too long and made too many wishy-washy comments to give political distance while staying connected to Wright. The length of time raises more questions, which will keep the focus on Obama and leave the "is he an extremist" question in people's minds.

Hillary has tried to portray herself as a moderate with little success. Now, when compared to Obama, she'll have an easier time selling herself as such without having to do much except stand there and give stump speeches. On a much larger scale, though, this could play into Hillary's strategy to persuade the superdelegates to swing her way, provided she strikes now while the opportunity is there. But judging from this past weekend, at least the Wright situation won't be going away anytime soon.

Regardless of the motivations behind Wright's statements and actions, it's clear Obama is in a big mess. Not only does he have to do damage control, but he has to deal with a reinvented Hillary that he created. Oops.

One for My "Homies"

I've held my tongue long enough. I have reached a point where I either have to say something and let the chips fall where they may or explode. And if you've ever seen a big man explode, it's not pretty.

This one goes out to my people, whites. Would you knock off all that white guilt already? Seriously!

I had a chance to watch, read, and listen to a portion of the revival meeting...I'm sorry, Rev. Jeremiah Wright's speech in front of the National Press Club today. First off, I don't buy his "I was taken out of context" bull anymore. Out of all the statements Wright's made, there's only one of them you could say was possibly taken out of context: the "God damn America" line. And even then, you would have to admit it wasn't exactly the best phrasing in the world.

Well, you would have to admit it if whites weren't afraid of the R-word.

Rev. Wright is doing a trick I've seen with customers I've dealt with in a past job. Their MO is to take one mistake made by the company, blow it out of proportion, and then use it as an excuse to ignore all the crap they've screwed up. And by not calling Wright on the anti-white, anti-Jewish, anti-American, and anti-anything-else rhetoric he spews, we're admitting we're as bad as Wright says we are.

But by far the worst people I've seen are the whites who are actually agreeing with Wright! They're the type who think they've "broken the code" or "found the real meaning" that Wright was talking about in his sermons and speeches. And they say that "blacks and any intelligent whites" would agree. It's a logical fallacy that they're using to justify their position. They figure that since they think they're intelligent and think a certain way, everyone who is intelligent would think the same way. Bzzzzzzzzzzzt! Oooooh, sor-ray.

Time for me to clear up a couple of things for my fellow whites.

1) Blacks can be just as racist as whites.
2) "Racism" has been tossed around to the point where it only has the power you give it.
3) Slavery ended over 100 years ago. Stop beating yourself up over it.
4) People like Rev. Wright are playing the race card so they can get something out of you.
5) The best way to handle a race-baiter is to stand up to them.

There you have it. Five easy steps to dealing with the Rev. Wrights of the world. So, if there are any blacks or "intelligent whites" who think I'm a racist for calling Rev. Wright a charlatan, a racist, and a total ingrate, I have two words for you.

Bring it.

The Shape of Things to Come

It's official: Cindy Sheehan has the forms to run as an independent candidate against Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. If Sheehan can get the signatures of enough voters, she'll be an official candidate. But that's not the real story. The real story is how the possibility of a Pelosi/Sheehan race is an indication of how badly Democrats have mismanaged their party for the past few years.

And, surprise surprise, it all starts with Bill and Hillary Clinton.

When Bill and Hillary hit the Democratic Party scene in ernest in 1992, they were transformative figures. Within a short time, they went from a former Governor of Arkansas and his Yuppie wife to the central figures of one of the two major political parties. If Bill and Hillary would have had the party's best interests in mind, it wouldn't be so bad, but they didn't. It's always been about them and what the party could do for them. Quite a difference from John F. Kennedy's famous speech.

Once the Clintons were in place, the Democratic Party seemed to slavishly follow whatever they wanted. They had the political capital in 1993 and 1994 to set the stage for a new Democratic agenda, and the Clintons were still fairly popular. However, they didn't capitalize on the situation, which lead to the Republican Revolution in 1994. Bill Clinton was blamed in large part for Democrats losing control of Congress in full, but they stuck by him.

The Democrats reached the point of no return with the Clintons in 1998 and 1999 with the Clinton impeachment. The Democratic Party were seriously hurt by their loyalty to the Clintons during this time by not having the serious discussion Clinton's actions required. We had a sitting President lying under oath about something that may not have mattered in the grand scheme of things. This was a situation that, contrary to popular belief, was not a "vast right wing conspiracy," but was a monster of the Clintons' own making. When the Democrats made the decision to admit Clinton did wrong, but it didn't rise to the level of an impeachable offense, they became the Clintonic Party.

But there was another effect that didn't get noticed right away and still isn't being recognized. All of the political capital the Democrats spent to keep Clinton in office took away from building up the future leaders of the party, Al Gore included, and it has hurt them in election after election. Even in Election 2006, when Democrats took back the House and took back the Senate in name only, the leadership deficiency was apparent. Seriously, did Democrats really believe Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi would be great Congressional leaders? In the latter case, it's clear they didn't think beyond their desire to "make history" when choosing Pelosi for Speaker. To put it bluntly, the Pelosi House and the Reid Senate have been laughingstocks of political ineptitude.

This opens the door for people like Sheehan because it gives them a reason to run against the Democratic "leadership." And thanks to the political empowerment they've felt because of Sheehan, they will jump at the chance to take down politicians they think are shielding Bush from impeachment. What this does in the political sense is put pressure on the Democrats to appease the left wing of their party, which they really can't do without losing the more conservative elements of their party. This creates the political equivalent of a Faustian deal, and it could create situations where a Democrat who could have won easily will either be weakened or lose outright because of a split vote.

It also further splits the Democratic Party, which has been a loose coalition of special interest groups since you-know-who was President. There is enough anamosity within Democratic ranks right now that we could see a major rift appear even if Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama win the Presidential election. Those special interest groups that Bill Clinton was able to hold together are now looking to advance their agendas, even at the expense of the party that gave them an audience in the first place.

In short, the Democrats created the mess they're in, and with people like Cindy Sheehan taking aim at Nancy Pelosi, it doesn't look like they're calling in the cleaning crew just yet.

A Response to Rev. Wright

I just watched the Bill Moyers "interview" with Rev. Jeremiah Wright. I put "interview" in quotation marks because it wasn't so much an interview as it was like those infomercials that look and sound like talk shows, but are actually hawking some product. It wasn't surprising by any stretch of the imagination. If Moyers was any more liberal, he'd make Cindy Sheehan look like Ann Coulter.

To be fair to Rev. Wright, I listened to his statements in context and in full as shown on Moyers's PBS program. After all, it's entirely possible that he was taken out of context by the politically motivated. Well, I listened, Rev. Wright and I gave you the benefit of the doubt and I came to one conclusion.

Rev. Wright, you are everything the right says you are and more.

I listened to you lament America's role in apartheid in South Africa as "terrorism."

Bull.

I listened to you lament America's "terrorist" acts against the Palestinian State.

Bull.

I heard your comments in context about "America's chickens are coming home to roost" on the Sunday after 9/11. You say you weren't blaming America.

Bull.

Sir, you are an anti-American, anti-Jewish, anti-white Pharisee, the very type that would use God's word to justify your personal agenda. No matter how many times you cry "my comments were taken out of context" or wrap yourself in holy robes, you cannot hide the man you are.

And, sir, you are no man of God.

During the softball-fest with Moyers, Wright said if you repeat a lie often enough, you start believing it. To quote Jesus, "Physician, heal thyself."

It's Rainin' (Weather)men!

By now, you've heard that Barack Obama has connections to a former member of the Weather Underground, William Ayers. Seems that in order to be considered electable in Leftist circles in Chicago, you had to at least meet with Ayers. And, boy, did Obama ever meet with him! Obama has tried to downplay Ayers's past while at the same time playing up the fact that the two of them are friends.

This would have to be grist for Hillary's campaign, right? Not so much. Seems Hill has her own connections to the Weather Underground in the form of her husband, Bill. Former President Clinton granted clemency to two members of the Weather Underground, Linda Evans (no, not the "Dynasty" Linda Evans) and Susan Rosenberg (no, not the "Dynasty" Susan Rosenberg). After news of the clemency got out, Hillary was in full denial mode, saying she didn't know anything about the situation. Yeah, and she really did take sniper fire in Bosnia.

Enough time has passed that most people have forgotten that the Weather Underground was a radical left-wing domestic terrorist group that took responsibility for bombings, murders, and other crimes. Granted, they were active 30 years ago or so, but the fact that both major Democratic Party candidates have connections to them is troubling, not because they had the connections, but because they saw nothing wrong with the connections before they became public knowledge.

Let that sink in for a moment. Two candidates wanting to be President finding little if anything wrong with domestic terrorists. That alone should disqualify either of them from holding a job at the McDonalds drive through window, let alone the job of being leader of the free world. But they pass it off as though it were nothing of importance.

Doesn't that make you feel so good to know that one of these knuckleheads could be President after Election Day?

The Forgotten Man

The Democratic race for President is down to two candidates, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. As of this writing, neither one has locked up their party's nomination, and neither one appears to be able to do it before their convention this summer. As such, DNC Chair Howard Dean is looking to try to get out of a messy battle for the nomination.

If Dr. Dean really wants a solution, he need only look beyond the current two-person battle to a third party. The name tossed about is former Vice President and current environmental Chicken Little Al Gore. That won't work because Gore has a major stumbling block: he's Al Gore. Instead, I have another person in mind, and for those reading this concerned that I'm helping the Democrats, don't worry. Democrats don't often read this blog anyway. :-)

The person I'm referring to is John Edwards. Right now, he's being seen as a potential king (or queen) maker because he has a handful of delegates that he could give to Clinton or Obama. But he might be the solution to the Clinton/Obama fight because he has more than a few of the positives of both without the negatives. He's a handsome, articulate candidate who can draw from multiple voting blocs. He does well with labor, fairly well with African-Americans, well with social justice Leftists, and appears moderate enough to draw in moderate to conservative Democrats. And because he's been out of the race before it's gotten testy, he's instantly above the fray.

If that doesn't make Edwards the perfect solution to the Democrats' imperfect election nightmare, I don't know what would.