March 5, 2008

Hillary wins 3 of 4

Hillary wins crucial Ohio easily and Texas narrowly, but Obama still has the lead in delegates, and now there's not much on the schedule all the way until Pennsylvania on April 22. Obama supporters are mad that Hillary isn't dropping out, but if their candidate is so strong, why won't seven more weeks of free publicity and massive fundraising make him stronger in November? Or do they fear what might emerge from more scrutiny?

It will be interesting to see if blacks are sore about Hispanics in Texas voting heavily against Obama.

By the way, the Democrats have a mess involving the DNC's decision in 2007 to punish Florida and Michigan, out of all the states that moved up their primaries, by not seating their delegations (where Hillary ended up doing well in both primaries, but they weren't really contested). These are two big purple states, much like Ohio, so the Democrats should want to know who would win them in a fair fight. It would make sense to reschedule their primaries for May.

My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

58 comments:

Lucius Vorenus said...

Steve Sailer: It will be interesting to see if blacks are sore about Hispanics in Texas voting heavily against Obama.

It might be too soon to say this now [Obama could yet mount a big comeback], but I'm almost feeling a little sorry for the blacks here.

Just when it looked like they had finally found their man and were going to enjoy their moment in the sun, the blacks see that the hispanics have passed them demographically, so that, once again, the blacks end up at the bottom of the barrel.

No matter how you try to reconcile the thing, it can't be fun to be the people with the lowest IQs on the face of the earth - the people who always finish dead last in more or less everything [outside of American-rules basketball].

braindead said...

So now the Clinton's are finished with the Africans and the Latinos are the new game in town. I guess Hill will have to get that amnesty through as payback.

rightsaidfred said...

>>>>the Democrats have a mess involving the DNC's decision in 2007 to punish Florida and Michigan

Hee hee

>>>>These are two big purple states, much like Ohio, so the Democrats should want to know who would win them in a fair fight.

Isn't Ohio the state with a demographic that reflects the country as a whole, and has voted for the general election winner more than any other state? So, if Hillary can win among Ohio Democrats, the question is which Democrat would win among Ohio Republicans (and Naderites et al). I think Hillary.

braindead said...

Steve,
You need to update your blog more often, otherwise it becomes uninteresting. This is a blog after all, and not just another boring propaganda outlet.

simon newman said...

"These are two big purple states, much like Ohio, so the Democrats should want to know who would win them in a fair fight"

This is the crucial point the Democrats should be focused on - a candidate who can win the marginal/purple states. Last time they went for Kerry when Edwards would have had a much better chance in the states that are needed to win. I suspect they may do the same, go for Obama when Hillary has a much better chance of swaying (eg) the white blue collar rural voters of Ohio, people who voted for Reagan, for Bill Clinton and for GW Bush. Maybe Jim Webb as the VP candidate would help Obama there, but it might well not be enough.

John said...

Steve,

It may make sense, but I doubt it will ever happen. It would cost the states of MI and FL too much money when their budgets are already being hard hit by the current economic slowdown.

kurt said...

My understanding of why Obama did not do well in Texas and Ohio is that the press actually grilled him with hard questions a few days before these primaries. Saturday Night Live had a comedy skit depicting the press as a bunch of adoring sycophants to Obama. Apparently much of the press corp was offended by this and decided to ask Obama tough questions. Obama tried to parry with his substance-lacking charisma and, realizing this was not working, got huffy and angry and made a hasty retreat from the press.

This does not bode well for the rest of his campaign.

William said...

Did Obama's need for the Hispanic vote cause him to go with the English version of "Si se puede"?

Hillary won several key states by winning the Hispanic vote 2-1.


In California
, Hispanics comprised 30% of Democratic primary voters, and voted for Clinton at almost exactly 2-1. Hillary beat Obama in California by a fairly astounding 59-36 - but 10 of the 23 point difference was due to the Hispanic vote. Take out the Hispanics and California might've been competitive for Obama. (Blacks in California made up only 7% of Democratic primary voters).

But where the biggest difference was felt was Texas. Obama needed Texas to finish Hillary off for good, and he didn't get it. Hillary's like Glenn Close's character in "Fatal Attraction." She keeps coming back to life with that bloody knife in her hands. (Has Glenn endorsed Hillary in this election?)

1) Before Tuesday I predicted that if Hispanics kept Obama from winning the nomination that it may cause a rift in the Democratic Party and cause black politicians to take a harder line on illegal immigration. I still think there's a good chance of that.

2) Obama's loss could demoralize blacks in November and help Republican congressional chances.

3) The extended primary is sucking up Democratic donor money which helps the GOP.

4) If Hillary tried to offset the disappointment by making Obama her Veep the effect would only be worse: 2 radical, open borders leftists, one female, one black. The Republican share of the white vote would go through the roof.

Ralph Phelan said...

Hillary also kicked @$$ in the heavily Italian & Catholic RI. She seems to be doing well with Catholics. Maybe Obama's "Baptist preacher" style is rubbing them the wrong way?

Big Bill said...

If Hillary was smart she would keep hammering on NAFTA. Not because she has a better plan (she doesn't), but because Obama's Law 'n Economics buddies in Chicago (Goolsbee et al.) no doubt have a nasty free trade streak that she could hang around Obama's neck.

For example, what about this NAFTA "labor mobility" that Obama is looking to renegotiate?

Under NAFTA, a Mexican company can send its "service" employees over the border to provide "services" legally in the USA without establishing a permanent presence in the USA. (See NAFTA, Articles 9, 12 and 16).

So what is Obama looking to encourage?

Permitting Mexicans to stay longer in the USA?

Encouraging Mexican lawn "service" and Mexican cleaning "service" employees to come to America and work for Mexican wages ($4 a day) instead of just nurses, doctors, teachers, engineers and accountants?

If you search for "NAFTA" and "labor mobility' you find out that NAFTA is for free trade in services as well as free trade in goods. We just don't hear about it much.

Perhaps we will now that Obama and his Law and Econ brain trust want to expedite and encourage "labor mobility".

Perhaps Hillary can start to hammer on Obama asking him what he and his pals really plan to do.

Concerned said...

Sure, blacks are sore. (When are they not? They've taken righteous grievance to the point of disability.)

More pertinently, the Obama bubble has burst, but a bit too late for the Democratic party to resolve this amicably. Hillary wins all the big states but she is so far behind in the delegate math that nothing but disaster can happen.

some guy 73 said...

Threadjack time.

SWPL clearly reads isteve.

Being white means to engage in a day in, day out struggle to prove that you are smarter than other white people.

Anonymous said...

I believe that if one includes Florida, Hillary now has more popular votes. If you include Michigan, she has an even bigger lead in the popular vote.

And if we took away all those died in the wool Red states that Obama has won (mostly as caucus states), then Hillary would be far in the lead.

This doesn’t mean that Obama would be a weaker candidate in the fall, although it might mean that. Obama depends on independent voters, the kind of uninformed voter who is easily manipulated by the mainstream media, very similar to a large chunk of the McCain vote.

Anonymous said...

I agree wholeheartedly. As I have stated previously on this blog, a big chunk of Obama's victories have come in states that the Democrats have absolutely no shot of winning in November - Utah, Georgia, Alabama, Virginia, and Louisiana. He has won the blue/purple states of Illionis, Vermont, Wisconsin, DC, Connecticut, Maryland and Delaware. However, these states only have a total of 58 electoral votes. By contrast, Hillary has won the solidly Democratic states of Ohio, Rhode Island, California, New York, Massachussetts, New Jersey, and Michigan. These states have a total of 154 electoral votes. Why are none of the TV talking heads who were pushing for Hillary to leave the race, pointing this fact out?

Anonymous said...

Steve I expect the Mother of All Convention fights in Denver. Should make Chicago 1968 look like a Girl Scout Jamboree.

Obama's backers, the rich white yuppies and Blacks, will unleash all the freaks. ANSWER and Code Pink and Nation of Islam and the various Gay groups parading around, demanding an Obama victory. I'm sure we'll see Muslims there too, backing Barack Hussein Obama.

If Hillary wins, and she might, she'll be fatally compromised by exposing the hard-left freak show that makes up much of the Democratic base. Same for Obama.

And certainly, having the contest go on well probably right up to the Convention will lock in hard-left positions to assuage the freak shows that will turn off most voters. Michelle Obama is the gift that keeps on giving. But Bill's not too far behind.

Your AI analogy here seems to be devolving into Survivor meets Big Brother: a freak show that allows ordinary people to feel superior. And it's ironic that SNL parodying the Obama-the-Messiah love of the Press seems to have kickstarted it all.

[I'd rather have Hillary than McCain -- she's more constrainable.]

Argent Paladin said...

The other shoe hasn't dropped in Texas yet. If Obama wins the caucus (as he probably will) he will actually pick up more pledged delegates from Texas than Hillary. Unless there is a true scandal, neither candidate will have enough pledged delegates to gain the majority and thus both will rely on the superdelegates. Lots of backroom dealings, accusations of favoritism, quid-pro-quo, accusations of corruption, smoke-filled rooms (well, figuratively), etc. I think this convention will look more like one from the 19th century than the 21st.
Of course, there is always the possibility of that horror of horrors: a Clinton/Obama ticket.

Ralph Phelan said...

various Gay groups parading around, demanding an Obama victory

They may be campaigning for Clinton. I've seen gay activists on the web [though they of course are not an unbiased sample, and things may be different in meatspace] complaining bitterly about the fact that Obama has used his "I have understood you" trick on religious people with qualms about homosexuality rather than rhetorically clawing their eyes out.

There will be moonbats on *both* sides. Even more fun!

simon newman said...

lucius vorenus:
"Just when it looked like they had finally found their man and were going to enjoy their moment in the sun, the blacks see that the hispanics have passed them demographically, so that, once again, the blacks end up at the bottom of the barrel."

Hispanics are still far fewer voters than blacks - black women vote, most Hispanics don't.
Obama played the race card to win the Florida primary - suddenly giving genuinely African-American, and anti-white, Michelle Obama a prominent role, while accusing the Clintons of racism. Obama had had minority support from blacks, most blacks had supported Hillary. Within a day or two he had a lock on the black vote, and he won Florida. Such tactics come at a price though. The liberal-left media may not care, but Obama's appeal to the blue collar whites who actually decide US elections took a nosedive. Unlike the New York Times they're very sensitive to indications of anti-white racism.

simon newman said...

lucius vorenus:
"it can't be fun to be the people with the lowest IQs on the face of the earth"

Khoi San and Australian Aborigines (who live mostly Western lives) both have substantially lower IQs than West Africans in Africa. And at 85 African-Americans' median IQ is close to the world average and is higher than that of whites in some countries. Stripping out environmental effects it's likely that the Bantu peoples have median IQs somewhat below the world average, but certainly not the lowest.

William said...

I guess Hill will have to get that amnesty through as payback.

Hillarycare, 2009 edition.

It will lose and Republicans, if they get their heads back, will benefit.

Of course, there is always the possibility of that horror of horrors: a Clinton/Obama ticket.

Let's play a new game: this one called "How high a share of the white vote can Republicans get?"

simon newman said...

I meant Georgia (I think) not Florida.

Anonymous said...

Here is a list of states that Obama has won that neither Democrat nominee has much if any chance of winning if the November general election:

Primaries: Georgia; Alabama; Louisiana; Utah; South Carolina. (Obama also won Virginia, which may be in play in the fall).

Caucuses: Nebraska; Kansas; Alaska; Idaho; North Dakota; Colorado. (Obama also won Maine and Iowa, states he may struggle to win in the fall).

The list shows how weak Obama has been in truly competitive states. However, I’m not sure he would be that weak against the extremely flawed candidate John McCain, especially with the media in the bag for Obama.

Truth said...

" the blacks see that the hispanics have passed them demographically, so that, once again, the blacks end up at the bottom of the barrel."

How many states did Bill Richardson win again?

"Obama played the race card to win the Florida primary - suddenly giving genuinely African-American, and anti-white, Michelle Obama a prominent role, while accusing the Clintons of racism."

Again with this ridiculous left-side-of-the-bell-curve anti-white thing again? Please show me where Michelle Obama is anti-white.

Of course if I were not running for office and in a certain blog two weeks were spent psychoanalyzing my 2nd grade finger paints, I might just have a good reason to mistrust whites. Particularly if THERE HAD NEVER BEEN A SIMILAR PRECEDENT FOR ANY PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE'S WIFE SET IN THE PAST.

Ok; reality check. What you consider to be a black woman being anti-white is simply annoyance at being held to a higher standard, and what makes it all the more comical is that her being held to a higher standard is justified because at some point early in her life, she may have been held to a lower standard.

I read somewhere that you people were supposed to favor Liberal Arts Degrees. Doesn't that still involve philosophical and discretionary thought, rhetoric and composition?

SKT said...

Well, I'm not one for scheming, though I do want to see the GOP win. I'm pleased to see Obama getting more scrutiny by the press.

Also, there's no chance in hell, zero, zip, zilch, that Hillary and Obama will run together in either combination. Too much animosity. One woman or one black on a ticket is untested enough, having both of them is sheer nuttiness. And I say this as a minority myself.

Anonymous said...

Truth -- Michelle Obama has been a huge lightning rod for discontent with Obama. Her privileged, Affirmative Action whines while on a lifestyle and income that most would gasp at grates. She complains she ONLY has a live in housekeeper, no full time nanny, and only a part-time cook. While her Husband pulls in millions from his book, they live in a mansion, and she makes over 300 large for ... being a Black Woman(tm) at the University of Chicago Hospital. Well that and being a fixer I suppose.

Her whines about ONLY having a personal trainer in four times a week, and having to fix her kids healthy meals grates. Topped off with a soupcon of resentment towards America, Whites, and so on it has been a disaster for her husband because it's a window into Barack Hussein Obama.

Steve did you get a gander at the picture of Obama's Paternal Grandmother in full ethnic costume in Kenya? It will certainly give more ammo to the belief that Obama is a closet Muslim (I don't think he is, merely as you suggest part of his anti-White beliefs).

Dems are going to be hoisted on Identity Politics. Whites are certainly embracing it, particularly blue collar whites suspicious of anything elite Whites like. It's not what Dems expected but part of their demographic meltdown -- and accounts for the crummy nature of the GOP. If the GOP actually had to COMPETE for votes among blue collar whites they'd be more forthright in pushing things of interest such as no Amnesty and closed borders.

Neither Hillary nor Obama are good at playing to the blue collar white, middle class working white voters, but Hillary is better. Mostly because Obama is very very bad. Beating Alan Keyes is not the mark of a canny politico. His social isolation has hurt him like Bill Clinton's after 16 years of the WH and Davos has hurt him.

William said...

What you consider to be a black woman being anti-white is simply annoyance at being held to a higher standard

Name one time in her life when Michelle Obama was held to a higher standard. I'm willing to bet that absent powerful connections not a single white would get admitted to Princeton or Harvard Law with her transcript.

Likewise, in politics whites are generally held to a higher standard. They're presumed to be racists unless they've done something for the special benefit of minority group X. Minority politicians merely need avoid causing excessive offense to whites. That's a pretty low bar.

Barack Obama can go to Jeremiah Wright's weekly sermons and get away with it. But if Mitt ROmney was born and raised in a church that barred blacks from the preisthood he's assumed to be racist.

How many states did Bill Richardson win again?

In no state, except perhaps New Mexico, do Hispanics have the power to overrule everyone else (yet). But they can tilt the balance one way or the other.

James Kabala said...

Contrary to some posts above, it is actually unclear which candidate has done better in competitive states.

Competitive states for Obama: Colorado, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin.

Competitive states for Clinton: Arkansas, Florida*, Michigan*, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio.

Solid Republican states for Obama: Alabama, Alaska, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Carolina, Utah.

Solid Democratic states for Obama: Connecticut, Delaware, D.C., Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Vermont.

Solid Republican states for Clinton: Arizona (would be competitive if the GOP nominee were not McCain), Tennessee, Texas.

Solid Democratic states for Clinton: California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island.

The classifications above are subjective, of course, but you can use this list to mix and match as you please. It does seem (if we count Florida and Michigan) that Hillary's competitive states are slightly larger than Obama's, but several small competitive states can add up.

Anonymous said...

it will be better to have hillary as president than mccain. republicans can agree to disagree with clinton on illegal immigration amnesty, and that will be the end of the issue. mccain will take out all kinds of vendettas against former colleagues and republicans will fall in line - no resistance.

Anonymous said...

According to the link below, Obama won only four counties out of 88 counties in Ohio. Looks like that means Obama’s base is a combination of 90 percent plus of the black vote and a minority of white leftists and liberals.

In spite of the Mainstream Media brown nosing Obama, he still has a very limited appeal.


http://politicalmaps.org/ohio-primary-maps-clinton-and-mccain-win-ohio-primary/

Steve Sailer said...

James Kabala:

Thanks.

That's why, if were a Democratic Party elder, I'd want to rerun the Democratic primaries in Michigan and Florida.

Anonymous said...

"If Hillary was smart she would keep hammering on NAFTA."

I happen to be a free trader, but I think most of you will enjoy reading Pat Buchanan's letter to the FT today about NAFTA.

- Fred

William said...

Is how a Democratic candidate does in the Democratic primary of any state really have any consequence for whether or not they'll win that state come election time?

Primaries tend to attract party diehards, while in general elections it's the modderates of both parties plus independents that a candidate needs to attract.

The bobos and blacks who vote for Obama aren't typical of that group.

My guess would be that Hillary has the better chance of winning competitive states in the fall because she's been more competitive among Hispanics and blue collar whites - but then she also has higher negatives than Obama.

As for the Florida/Michigan fiasco, there are several ways of looking at it:

1) Don't seat their delegates, because rules are rules (since when does that matter to the Dems?) Not a good strategy if you want to win these states in November.

2) Seat their delegates based on the primary vote, because Obama could've competed if he'd wanted to, but didn't.

3) Rerun the primaries, because if you're gunna change the rules in the middle of the game you need to be fair.

I favor (3), not only because it seems most fair, but because it involves the Dems burning up more donor contributions and more catfighting between Clinton & Obama.

The idea of moving up the primary was to get the states more influence in the process when now, come to find out, later states are just as if not more important. I can't imagine voters in Florida and Michigan opposing that, no matter what the cost to the taxpayers.

William said...

I happen to be a free trader, but I think most of you will enjoy reading Pat Buchanan's letter to the FT today about NAFTA.

The Wall Street Journal crowd today argues that NAFTA was as much about free trade in labor as about free trade in goods. Now I vaguely remember the whole NAFTA debate, but I don't remember anyone arguing that at the time? Anyone else remember hearing thing about it back then, either way?

Because it seems to me that the whole advantage of free trade is that you then don't have to move labor if you can move products across borders. Certainly back in 1992 no one thought of free trade as involving anything but goods, or else services not requiring movement of people (like locating a call center in Mumbai - though unheard of back then).

Question: What would have to be done to withdraw the US from NAFTA? Executive order, act of Congress and signature of the president - what?

Truth said...

"In no state, except perhaps New Mexico, do Hispanics have the power to overrule everyone else (yet). But they can tilt the balance one way or the other."

The same can be said about blacks. Hisapanics and blacks make up roughly the same proportion of the American population.

"Name one time in her life when Michelle Obama was held to a higher standard."

I had to leave the keyboard for a second before tackling this question but here is the (repetitive) answer:

A week ago on this board!

I am 41 years old, and I have never heard occasion of a president's WIFE'S academic record (before they ever met) being scrutinized as evidence of something signatory and relevant to an election.

Quick: Where did Cindy McCain go to college and what were her grades?

Elizabeth Edwards?

Ann Romney?

Elizabeht Kuchnich?

Carol Shepp? (do you even know who she is?)

Sara Lindsey?

Jeri Thompson?

Janet Huckabee?

Regina Peruggi?

Donna Hanover?

Judith Guiliani?


Joan Adams?

Elizabeth Dole?

Kitty Dukakis?

Nancy Reagan?

Rosalyn Carter?

Esther Stassen?

Hell, I'd settle for you to answer the question about Hillary Clinton!

If this is not blatant indication of 'being held to a higher standard, what is?

James Kabala said...

Just as John Kerry once forgot Poland, I forgot (or rather overlooked, since I was looking at a written list) Oklahoma (solid Republican state for Clinton).

P.S. Thank you for your thanks.

Anonymous said...

Contra Kabala:

I didn’t mean “competitive” in the context of winning Red States away from Republicans, but rather that Obama hasn’t shown much ability to win basic Democrat voters in major states, outside of his base of blacks and elite white leftists. This is particularly the case in states that before the Red-Blue divide were formerly “battle-ground” states, such as Ohio (trending Blue after being Red), New Jersey (now solidly Blue), and the upcoming Pennsylvania. If Obama’s weakness with blue collar and older white voters remains the case, he will put some of those states into play against McCain. I just don’t see Hillary losing those states to McCain, or even having to worry about them.

As even Kabala’s list indicates, Obama’s list of states that he won that neither he nor Clinton stands a chance of winning is multiple times longer. Obama is virtually limited to winning states with large black blocks or states that are virtually all white (Vermont-Blue, Idaho-Red, North Dakota-Red etc.).

Note also that Kabala didn’t mention Louisiana, which isn’t going Democrat, period. I also doubt that Obama can win a general election in Iowa or Virginia and will struggle in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Colorado.

Lucius Vorenus said...

Anonymous: By contrast, Hillary has won the solidly Democratic states of Ohio, Rhode Island, California, New York, Massachussetts, New Jersey, and Michigan.

John McCain had better hope that Ohio isn't yet "solidly" Democrat.

Otherwise his electoral math becomes very iffy.

Martin said...

"Truth said...

I am 41 years old, and I have never heard occasion of a president's WIFE'S academic record (before they ever met) being scrutinized as evidence of something signatory and relevant to an election."

It was true of Hillary Clinton. As you may remember the Clintons offered themselves as a two-for-the-price-of-one deal, and as such, the scrutiny of Mrs. Clinton was quite justified. Hillary was given authority within the government and was certainly a strong influence on her husband's actions, so her background and beliefs were fair game.

Obama's campaign has not explicitly mentioned the 2-for-1 deal. But given the high profile she has assumed in the campaign, I think we are safe in assuming that she will also be an important advisor to a President Obama. She put herself in the game, so it's fair to inquire about her past.

Lucius Vorenus said...

Truth: Please show me where Michelle Obama is anti-white.

Head on over to the Asia Times:

Obama's women reveal his secret
By Spengler
Feb 26, 2008
atimes.com

Sing, o muse, the wrath of Michelle
By Spengler
Mar 4, 2008
atimes.com

Ralph Phelan said...

truth:

Hillary Clinton is the only name on that list that's comparable - the others don't go around giving 45 minute headliner speeches at campaign rallies.

And Hillary's academic record was closely examined, to the point where she set the precedent Michelle briefly followed of embargoing her senior thesis. So far as I know, Hillary's is still under wraps.

So now that she's competing in the "Lady Macbeth" category Michelle Obama is, for the first time in her life, being held to the same standards as her competition without any affirmative action thumb on her side of the scale, and she doesn't like it.

But poitics aint beenbag, if if Michelle can't take the heat, she should get out of (or should that be get back into?;-) the kitchen.

William said...

John McCain had better hope that Ohio isn't yet "solidly" Democrat. Otherwise his electoral math becomes very iffy.

Maybe not, but Bush barely won it last time. Four miserable, mismanaged years later...

William said...

Quick: Where did Cindy McCain go to college and what were her grades?

Keep in mind that John McCain has been a public figure for over a quarter-century. Barack just arrived on stage a mere 3 years ago with an insignificant political history to examine him by.

Every group of people has their burden to bear when they run for office. White politicians have plenty. For black politicians running for major office (governor, senator, president) it's proving that they're not deep in thrall to black radicalism and the politics of victimization. Barack's choice of churches raises the issue for him. His wife's behavior makes it more worrisome.

But as I said above, convincing the majority population that you're not into radicalism and victimization isn't a very high bar to cross.

The same can be said about blacks. Hisapanics and blacks make up roughly the same proportion of the American population.

The absolute political power of Hispanics vs. blacks was never in question. The point to be made is that if it weren't for the "growing Latino vote" Barack's path to the White House would be much easier. He would've beaten Clinton already. Whether the "growing Latino vote" rescues Hillary with 1% of the vote or 40% doesn't much matter.

Anonymous said...

Truth -- what Michelle Obama does is give a window into the otherwise close-mouthed, secretive world of Black Nationalist Barack Hussein Obama.

Most successful candidates have wives who are boring on purpose. A wife/husband can HURT their spouse but rarely help them. Cindy McCain, Laura Bush, etc. are bland and boring by design. Hillary Clinton circa 1992 was no help to Bill, and some hindrance, based on her two-for-one argument and feminist snide remarks about Tammy Wynette. Oddly enough! she did stand by her man, baking cookies, later on.

And Bill for his part has come under scrutiny and has been a hindrance not help to Hillary.

Michelle Obama's whinging, whining, and Affirmative Action pouting symbolize in easily grasped ways to voters all that is wrong about Barack Hussein Obama (well, wrong if you're not Black).

She's like Donovan McNabb pouting during his press conference on how HARD it was for him as Black Quarterback to deal with all the criticism. Reporters were laughing in his face shouting Eli! and Rex (Grossman).

No one cares about her GRADES. It's her attitude -- "Leon" on those parody commercials -- that people reasonably assume Barack Hussein Obama shares.

Truth said...

"A wife/husband can HURT their spouse but rarely help them. Cindy McCain, Laura Bush, etc. are bland and boring by design."

My friend, everyone is "bland and boring" if you don't look in his closet. We bought all of the nonsense spoken by Strom Thurmond for how many years? Then he dies and we realize that his whole life was a lie.

Do you think none of those women I listed has ever had an affair? From my own personal experience, I would surmise that most if not all of them have. None have had an abortion? Drank too much? Tried drugs? Been sexually abused by her father?

Lucius Vorenus, I read both articles, and excuse me for being stupid, but again, I did not see one iota of anti-white sentiment in what M. Obama said in either. Feel free to provide examples.

"As you may remember the Clintons offered themselves as a two-for-the-price-of-one deal"

Every marriage is, ostensibly, a 2-for-1 deal. All presidents wives at this point in time have college degrees, all have worked private sector jobs and and most have made more money than your average American male. What is so special about this one that indicates a need for higher scrutiny?

"Hillary Clinton is the only name on that list that's comparable - the others don't go around giving 45 minute headliner speeches at campaign rallies."

That's funny, I remember the wife of the last democratic nominee making plenty of speeches, using near-profanity, appearing intoxicated, making borderline anti-American and anti working-class statements. I don't think anyone ever looked into her college thesis.

"Keep in mind that John McCain has been a public figure for over a quarter-century. Barack just arrived on stage a mere 3 years ago with an insignificant political history to examine him by."

And what about John Edwards?

"And Hillary's academic record was closely examined,"

HAHAHAHA don't make me laugh, her academic record is not being closely examined now.

"For black politicians running for major office (governor, senator, president) it's proving that they're not deep in thrall to black radicalism and the politics of victimization."

Why? do we start off assuming that every white politician is a Klansmen until he proves himself otherwise.

"Barack's choice of churches raises the issue for him."

I have to agree with you here, to some degree I wonder about people who believe in walking on water, living in whales bellies and turning to pillars of salt myself. I'm glad we've found common ground.

"what Michelle Obama does is give a window into the otherwise close-mouthed, secretive world of Black Nationalist Barack Hussein Obama."

I can see the movie now:

Barack will be wearing a black stovepipe hat and a cape, and twirling his mustache as he ties Tara Reid to a railroad track.

"And Bill for his part has come under scrutiny and has been a hindrance not help to Hillary."

Let me say this in the most sensitive way I can:

HE SHOULD COME UNDER SCRUTINY FOR ALL OF THE LAWS HE'S BROKEN AS A GOD-DAMNED TWO TERM EX PRESIDENT OF THE US!!!!!!!!

"Michelle Obama's whinging, whining, and Affirmative Action pouting symbolize in easily grasped ways to voters all that is wrong about Barack Hussein Obama (well, wrong if you're not Black)."

And Chris Andersen's pathetic attempt to land a slam dunk during the dunk contest symbolizes all that is weak and unmanly about whites! Oh wait, I thought I was on castefootball.us. It's getting late.

"No one cares about her GRADES. It's her attitude"

Then why did we spend so much time right here talking about her grades?

Please remember, all; you will all run out of cognition before I run out of amunition!

braindead said...

"Quick: Where did Cindy McCain go to college and what were her grades?"

With looks like that you don't need grades. I mean Cindy would instantly make a gorgeous First Lady, whereas Mrs Obama kinda reminds me of Winnie Mandela, only that she's a few inches taller.

Everybody respects a boss with a pretty chick.

simon newman said...

anon:
"No one cares about her GRADES. It's her attitude -- "Leon" on those parody commercials -- that people reasonably assume Barack Hussein Obama shares."

In politics it's perception and opinion that counts, because no one is forced to vote for a particular candidate. The same blue collar whites who won't vote for Obama now Michelle is prominent would have voted for Colin Powell, because there was no credible perception of an anti-white agenda (a small number of white racists wouldn't have voted for Powell on race grounds, but racism seems to be relatively uncommon amongst US whites despite the USA's poor race relations).

Ralph Phelan said...

Quick: Where did Cindy McCain go to college and what were her grades?

Michelle appears to be Barak's lifetime companion, and so matters in a way that a late-in-life trophy wife does not.

Anonymous said...

People rationalize their more gut level impressions. People are talking about Michelle O's grades, but they are reacting to her image as an Angry Black Woman, which is something people are sick to death of.

The is always something off-key about what she says. Her "Jack and his magic beans comment" about Barry O's books, for instance. What is she trying to imply? That his books are worthless and devoid of intellectual content? And maybe she is on to something. The newspeak word for "Magic Beans" is "Momentum." Or "Surge."

As for NAFTA. Since when were Republic Party principles anti free trade? That's called Populism or Know-Nothingism. It's based on a feeling of complacent entitlement, which is repugnant in people of any color.

The content of McCain's Tuesday night speech was very good. He said we Americans are a high quality nation and we are not afraid of the future. We will see how many Republicans share Know Nothing sentiments, and how many are self confident people who believe in the principles this nation was founded upon.

Proofreader said...

Everybody respects a boss with a pretty chick
Is that why Bush Sr got no respect?
Barbara was popular, but looked like his mother.

Svigor said...

Stripping out environmental effects it's likely that the Bantu peoples have median IQs somewhat below the world average, but certainly not the lowest.

More to the point, low mean IQ != unhappy. Blacks self-report as happier than whites or yellows.

The difference is that the Khoi-San don't live next to richer, more capable, racially distant groups. American blacks do. Cargo cultism causes the friction.

"Name one time in her life when Michelle Obama was held to a higher standard."

I had to leave the keyboard for a second before tackling this question but here is the (repetitive) answer:

A week ago on this board!


Lol, you're right she's had a rough go of it, the poor thing.

=D

I am 41 years old, and I have never heard occasion of a president's WIFE'S academic record (before they ever met) being scrutinized as evidence of something signatory and relevant to an election.

And of course, the scrutiny's all because she's black, not because she's fishy.

Neeeever expected that "defense," no really, honest! Now please excuse me, I've got to go collect on a bet (not that the payoff's much, what with the odds I had to accept).

Svigor said...

P.S: Truth, as usual you don't state your arguments clearly. Why not come right out and admit that your argument is, "Michelle Obama should be immune from investigation and criticism because most other women in her position (determined by me (i.e., potential first lady), not you (i.e., other half of potential president's brain) haven't been; exceptions based on circumstance not allowed."

Sorta like how you argued in a previous thread that Obama should get a pass on his high risk factor (of being a crappy president) because we've had lots of crappy presidents before, without actually coming right out and saying as much.

P.P.S: Truth, funny how you're here defending Michelle Obama only because she's black (by saying she's being attacked only because she's black), while we're here attacking her only because she's black (right?). The punchline is, you're the staunch integrationist (right?).

Now, if you're saying we can't really gauge how crappy a first lady Mrs. Obama would be relative to precedent because we don't have a baseline (insufficient data), I suppose you have a point. But, it isn't much of one because we can tell she'll make a crappy first lady in absolute terms.

James Kabala said...

Louisiana, like Oklahoma, was an accidental omission. I was working off my own memory supplemented by a CNN list that was arranged chronologically. My apologies for the oversight.

Truth said...

"but racism seems to be relatively uncommon amongst US whites despite the USA's poor race relations)."

It's funny that's the same thing black people say about US blacks but whites always tend to disagree.

Anonymous said...

Truth, you're being disingenuous in your defense of Michelle Obama. Her thesis is relevant because it shows 1) that she is a beneficiary of Affirmative Action, despite her whining claims of disadvantage, and 2) her overweening concern with race, specifically with using her power to benefit African-Americans. Can you see how white Americans might be rubbed the wrong way by a woman - a strong, dominant personality, unlike most of the women on your silly, unnecessarily long list - with such a pedigree?

simon newman said...

me:
""but racism seems to be relatively uncommon amongst US whites despite the USA's poor race relations)."

'truth':
"It's funny that's the same thing black people say about US blacks but whites always tend to disagree."

I'm white and British, so my direct experience is limited to visits to various parts of the USA. I've only perceived hostility from black Americans on account of my skin colour a few times, in northern places like Detroit & Chicago airports as well as Washington DC, but not in some places I've spent a lot more time, notably Tennessee and other Southern states - though Louisiana seemed to have a lot of mutual racial tension/hostility. The Jena 6 event indicated a high degree of anti-white racism (just as some of what happened with the Katrina disaster showed anti-black racism), but overall it seems more common among black leaders like Sharpton & Jackson than among blacks in general; which is not the case with whites.

Truth said...

" Her thesis is relevant because it shows 1) that she is a beneficiary of Affirmative Action"

No her thesis does not show this, it lightly implies this. There's a huge difference here. In order for her thesis to show that she was the beneficiary of affirmative action, one would have to compare it to the thesi of random others in her program, and this was not done. From my experience with the so called cream-of-the-crop, I think you would be highly surprised as to their mediocre writing abilities.

"and 2) her overweening concern with race,"

Dear. most Americans do have an overwhelming concern with race, that is in large part why this blog exists. I don't think it's right nor do I buy into it, but most people do and that comes back to a double standard i.e. why is it that you are allowed your prejudices and M.O is not.

"Can you see how white Americans might be rubbed the wrong way by a woman - a strong, dominant personality, unlike most of the women on your silly, unnecessarily long list - with such a pedigree?"

Yes I can, and it's been happening since the 70's with Bella Abzug, but the difference here is that Michelle Obama is not running for political office, her husband is. As I stated in earlier posts, by any logical comparison Hillary Clinton and Teresa Kerry would be considered much stronger and more "dominant" whatever that is then Michelle Obama. You could even make a case for Elizabeth Dole, but they did not fall under this type of scrutiny. Therefore I can only conclude one thing: Michelle Obama lives under a very harsh double standard that probably more than counterbalances any advantage she may have gotten at 17 years old. If she had the same personality and had gone to Illinois junior college would there be any less scrutiny here? I think not, and there would be probably more, vis-a-vis "geez, the president's wife could only muster up a junior college education...what an idiot these blacks are!"

"Truth, you're being disingenuous in your defense of Michelle Obama."

I have not written one word in defense of Michelle or even Barack Obama. I would not vote for him,and don't give a damn if he wins or loses as I feel that he is a Bilderberg shill (as are the two others). The only candidate in this race I gave serious thought to was Ron Paul and he dropped out of the race. My only defense here is of the truth, logic and fairness. It's as simple as that.

Ralph Phelan said...

double standard i.e. why is it that you are allowed your prejudices and M.O is not

It's not her having prejudices that's a problem, it's that she appears to have made them a central part of her identity and career. [Subject of her thesis, "black liberation theology" church, job in "Community and External Affairs" i.e. "relations with the black community."]

As I stated in earlier posts, by any logical comparison Hillary Clinton and Teresa Kerry would be considered much stronger and more "dominant"

Michelle is fair game not because of who or what she is, but what she's done. She is rightly being scrutinized because she is the main act at campaign rallies.

In 1992 Hillary was rightly scrutinized because of her "two for the price of one" comment.

Teresa Heinz Kerry was (in my opinion wrongly) not scrutinized because even that doofus Kerry was bright enough to recognize that a far-left limousine radical with an air of entitlement and superiority would rub many voters the wrong way, so he tried to minimize her visibility, rather than maximizing it as Barack has done with Michelle.

Ralph Phelan said...

" Her thesis is relevant because it shows 1) that she is a beneficiary of Affirmative Action"

No her thesis does not show this, it lightly implies this.


That's why the interest in the grades - they're a better way of figuring out whether the speculation that Michelle Obama only got into Princeton because of her skin color is in fact true.

There was less interest in Hillary's grades because there's little reason to believe Wellesley accepted her because they were low on white Midwestern Methodists. Instead the focus was more on the development of her political philosophy, which she was far cagier about revealing than Michell Obama is.