• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Presidential election may be up for grabs

I heard reps from both camps, Hilary and Obama, on CNN yesterday and they are in agreement that a new vote, fully endorsed by the DNC must be held.
But I am unsure if even this event would allow one of them to win a majority.
 
Baden  Guy said:
I heard reps from both camps, Hilary and Obama, on CNN yesterday and they are in agreement that a new vote, fully endorsed by the DNC must be held.
But I am unsure if even this event would allow one of them to win a majority.

But, see my link to finances just a few minutes back, there is a cost. I heard $20 Million per state bandied about.

I'm not sure which is which, but: if it's a caucus then the party (or state?) has to pay the costs and the Dems only have $3 Million in the bank, while if it is a primary the states (or party?) have to pay and neither legislature (especially not the Republican controlled one in Florida) is willing to do that.
 
CougarDaddy said:
You don't have to mock them by implying that their base doesn't exist by using quotes with the word "base" above.  ;D

The fact that the Democrats actively engage in "Identity politics" was the reason I used the quotation marks around the word "base". While it is true all political parties tailor their message to appeal to different voting blocks, most voters for classical liberal parties such as the Republicans or the CPC usually coalesce around a set of ideas: Freedom of Speech, Free Association, Property Rights and the Rule of Law.  I think this explains why we see functional coalitions of Social conservatives, fiscal conservatives and small "l" libertarians under the party tents working in relative harmony.

Since from my observation the Democrats are much more concerned with identifying and appealing to voters by group categories such as race, social and economic class, they run a very real risk of fracturing along these lines. Watch or read pundits in the US media and they immediately talk about how well Senator Obama does among black voters while Senator Clinton does well among Latino voters. Discussions on how well the senators do with women voters have an uncomfortable subtext; do black females vote for Senator Obama or Senator Clinton? (Actually, the implied subtext is how do white females vote.....). 

The other subtext is these are monolithic blocks of Democratic voters, and contraexamples like General Colin Powell or Dr Condelezza Rice are either ignored or attacked as "unauthentic", rather than seen as proof people can make up their own minds and are not part of a monolithic block. Interestingly enough (and I have noted this in other threads in the Politics section), the idea that people are categorized in indivisible and monolithic blocks is one of the defining features of Socialism.
 
Interesting maps based on polling by SurveyUSA. The maps indicate that the DNC needs both Florida and Michigan if they are to win, by not seating thier delegates they risk losing the election.

http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/03/06/new-electoral-maps-to-be-released-today-based-on-30000-just-completed-interviews/

Clinton vs McCain
HillaryMcCain.jpg


Obama vs McCain
ObamaMcCain.jpg
 
E.R.

That energized base the you remark on:  Is it truly a Democratic Base or is it a combination of the old base and a couple of personality cults?  I gather that Clinton has enemies of longstanding in the Democrats.  Presumably they are supporting Obama.  But equally she has her true Clintonista following.  Obama on the other hand seems to be bringing non-base people to the game.  That in turn seems to be energizing dormant Clintonistas and getting them to turn out.

The question in my mind is will those "cult followers" stick with the party and the "opposition" in the event that their Chosen is not selected by the party.  Or will they sit on their hands?
 
Kirkhill said:
E.R.

That energized base the you remark on:  Is it truly a Democratic Base or is it a combination of the old base and a couple of personality cults?  I gather that Clinton has enemies of longstanding in the Democrats.  Presumably they are supporting Obama.  But equally she has her true Clintonista following.  Obama on the other hand seems to be bringing non-base people to the game.  That in turn seems to be energizing dormant Clintonistas and getting them to turn out.

The question in my mind is will those "cult followers" stick with the party and the "opposition" in the event that their Chosen is not selected by the party.  Or will they sit on their hands?

I think the "personality cult" aspect is real -especially amongst young (university aged) people who are, overwhelmingly, if what I see* is representative, pro-Obama.

I also think Obama has reached a lot of independents in the primaries - many of whom may go (back) to McCain in the presidential election.

I agree that many, many Democrats detest (the) Clinton(S) but I'm not sure if they are campaigning for Obama or just voting against Hillary.


----------
* My 'sample' is on an upper-middle class university campus
 
Obama aide quits in 'monster' row

An adviser to Barack Obama has resigned after a Scottish newspaper quoted her calling rival US Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton "a monster".

Samantha Power has expressed "deep regret" over the comments and said she had tried to retract them. The Scotsman newspaper quoted Ms Power as saying:
"She is a monster, too - that is off the record - she is stooping to anything." Ms Power is a Harvard professor who has advised Mr Obama on foreign policy.
Announcing her resignation as an adviser, she said: "Last Monday, I made inexcusable remarks that are at marked variance from my oft-stated admiration for
Senator Clinton and from the spirit, tenor, and purpose of the Obama campaign."


DEMOCRATIC DELEGATE RACE
BARACK OBAMA: 1,569
Delegates won on 4 March: 183
States won: 24

HILLARY CLINTON: 1,462
Delegates won on 4 March: 186
States won: 16

Delegates needed to secure nomination: 2,025. Source: AP

Ms Power, who won a Pulitzer Prize in 2003, was speaking to the Scotsman about Mrs Clinton's campaign strategy in Ohio, a state the New York senator won
in Tuesday's primary elections. A spokesman for the Obama campaign, Bill Burton, said: "Senator Obama decries such characterisations, which have no place
in this campaign." Shortly before Ms Power stepped down, advisers to Mrs Clinton had held a conference call with reporters in which they called for her resignation.
Ms Power had already issued an apology and Mr Obama's campaign had already condemned her remarks.

'May get nastier'

Comments made by Ms Power about Mr Obama's Iraq strategy in an interview with the BBC earlier this week have also caused a stir. Ms Power said the Illinois
senator's position that he would withdraw all troops within 16 months was a "best-case scenario" that he would revisit if he became president.

The Clinton camp criticised her comments as inconsistent with those of Mr Obama on the campaign trail. "He has attacked me continuously for having no hard
exit date, and now we learn he doesn't have one, in fact he doesn't have a plan at all," Mrs Clinton told reporters while campaigning in Mississippi.

Obama campaign manager David Plouffe responded that Mr Obama's plan to withdraw about two brigades a month if elected was a "rock solid commitment"
to US voters.

Senior Democrats fear that weeks of attacks and mudslinging between the two camps could damage the party and cost it support in November's presidential
election. Howard Dean, chairman of the national Democratic Party, has warned that the tone of the campaign "may get nastier" and that the party must seek
to prevent that happening.

Rest of article on link
 
Al GORE AGAIN?  ;D

Oh Oh. It looks like Al Gore may be the only possible presidential contender if both Obama and Hillary Clinton can't get enough delegate votes from all the state primaries to win the presidential nomination for the Democratic Party.

The way the primaries are going right now, an Al Gore nominee scenario may not be too far-fetched; it has been said that he may be the only one who can unite the party whose strength has currently been divided between Clinton and Obama.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/119851

What If There is No Back Room?
The search for a way out of the Democrats' dilemma.

Eleanor Clift
Newsweek Web Exclusive
Updated: 11:56 AM ET Mar 7, 2008

No matter who wins the remaining primaries, there's no way for Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton to capture enough delegates to reach the magic number of 2,025 needed to secure the Democratic nomination. The decision will then fall to the superdelegates, elected officials and party people often demonized in the media as hacks or backroom operators. A majority of them will swing behind one or the other candidate—likely Hillary Clinton—boosting her over the top even if she lags behind Barack Obama in the pledged delegate count.

And they will do this dastardly deed behind closed doors, in the electronic equivalent of the smoke-filled room, plotting over cell phones and making their decision based on implied favors and self-interest. This is the nightmare scenario. The good news for Democrats is that the excitement of two historic candidates generated hundreds of thousands of new voters; the bad news is half of them won't show up in November. But wait, things could get worse, or maybe better, depending on your perspective.

What happens if the superdelegates are just like the rest of the voters—i.e., they can't definitively decide between these two candidates? "What happens if they split the superdelegates?" asks an adviser to the Clinton campaign. The roughly 350 superdelegates who have not yet endorsed are all free agents. There's nothing that says they have to act in concert, and they'll work to avoid anything that fuels conspiracy theories. "My real worry is there is no back room," says this adviser. Clinton says she'll go all the way to the convention in August. If there's a stalemate, the superdelegates could decide to pass on the first ballot to test the candidates' strength at that juncture. We could then be way back to the future, the first time in the modern reform age that a candidate is not chosen on the first ballot.

If that happens, the convention could turn to a compromise candidate. Al Gore is the most obvious and perhaps the only contender who could head off a complete meltdown in the party. After all, he already won the popular vote for the presidency. It was only because of a fluke at the Supreme Court that he was denied his turn at the wheel. No one could deny that he's ready on day one to assume the presidency. "It's the rational choice if this turns into a goddamn mess, which it could," says the Clinton adviser, who doesn't want to be quoted seeming to waver about Clinton's chances of securing the nomination.

Gore has kept his silence throughout the Democratic nominating season. But his name will surely surface as his party ponders the possibility that they will not have a nominee by the time the convention rolls around—especially since John McCain enjoys a huge head start in launching his general-election campaign. We have the Ted Kennedy forces to thank for the freedom of choice that all delegates enjoy, not just the supers. In 1980, Kennedy argued for an open convention, while President Carter was determined to keep convention delegates bound. With a 600-delegate margin over Kennedy, Carter prevailed. As a result, any delegate voting against the candidate he or she was elected to represent could be replaced by an alternate and thrown off the convention floor. The rule was strict and enforceable. Kennedy couldn't dislodge any of the Carter delegates. Two years later, after Carter lost the election, the phrase "in all good conscience" was inserted into the rule, belatedly giving delegates the latitude Kennedy had sought.

What does that phrase mean? In the eyes of the Clintonites, it holds the promise of some room to maneuver en route to the nomination. By the time August rolls around, if public opinion polls show John McCain beating Obama by 15 points, then what does a delegate or a superdelegate "in all good conscience" do? This week's general-election matchups with John McCain have Obama up by 12 points and Clinton up by 6, but that could change with Clinton pounding away at Obama's inexperience on national security. She's shameless, telling a military audience this week that she and McCain bring a lifetime of experience to the job of commander in chief, while all Obama brings is a speech. An unbloodied Obama fares better against McCain, but where will he be after Clinton is through with him?

The two contested nominations of the modern era—Kennedy-Carter in '80 and Reagan-Ford in '76—offer clues as to what may lie ahead. In each case, the candidate with the most pledged delegates going into the convention won the nomination. Each then went on to lose the general election. Clinton backers point to the Reagan model. Governor Reagan stayed in the fight all the way to the convention. He had a hundred delegates fewer than Ford, roughly the same deficit Clinton has today. Reagan helped insure his party's defeat but nailed the nomination four years later.

With the lines hardening between the Clinton and Obama camps, neither is inclined to yield. "They both have such a strong claim on the nomination, it would be dumb for either one of them to give up," says the Clinton adviser, predicting that for the first time in the modern "reform" era, the Democrats may select a nominee on the second ballot. Who it will be is anybody's guess.

URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/119851
 
And another view of Mr Gore:

http://thecanadianrepublic.blogspot.com/2008/02/could-al-gore-throw-his-hat-in-ring-for.html
 
I dont see Gore getting the nomination. The super delegates will select either Clinton or Obama.I do see a joint ticket though but whoever is the VP wont be a happy camper. I guess an option if Obama is passed over and he could decide to make a third party run.
 
Or a fourth party run, as Ralph Nader's hat is already in the ring. For a party that is supposed to attract the best and the brightest of the activist set, the Democrats seem to be incapable of practicality. They are quite capable of analysing all the possible choices and then picking the worst one. I fully expect them to exceed my expectations in this regard.

 
Obama now has ruled out being VP nominee.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/03/obama-you-wont.html
 
Amongst my acquaintances down here (Texas) – admittedly a pretty non-representative sample – there is broad general agreement on only one issue: the key to the Democratic nomination is the popular vote which, like the delegate count, currently appears to favour Obama by about 600,000 votes or 2½%.

Their assessment is that the super-delegates will not be willing to replace a winner who has both the most delegates and the most votes. The difficulty will come if Obama has the most delegates and Clinton wins the most votes – which she might do when ‘blue collar’ Pennsylvania is counted and if ‘blue collar’ Michigan and ‘seniors-heavy’ Florida are allowed to vote.

The argument then will be between the “let’s follow the traditional rules” camp (delegate count matters most, à la the US electoral college system) and the “let the people decide” camp (popular vote matters most). My acquaintances suggest that the popular vote will win out.

I wasn’t impressed with how Obama withstood his first really well aimed and concerted attack by Clinton (I thought Bill’s attacks in/around SC and Super Tuesday were badly aimed) and his first really tough questions from the media. If Clinton can continue to score well against him and if her campaign can derail the children’s crusade aspect of his campaign (no deep media attention) then she might do very well in PA, FL and MI – all relatively large states – even though Obama has, until now, done better at ‘getting out the vote.’

Since I favour McCain, as the better choice for Canada’s interests, I rather hope Clinton does well, despite the fact that I detest the woman. (There are those high negatives again.) 
 
The biggest argument in Clinton;s favor is that Obama's strength has been in caucus states. In texas' two tier system he lost the popular vote but got the lion's share of 67 delegates that came out of the caucus. In states with primaries Obama lags. Clinton has won the big states which is another argument for her as nominee.With Obama's Rzeko problem some of the luster will be worn off.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/1/29/105154/627
 
NAFTAgate gets even weirder. Maybe this explains why the Canadian Left wants our government to apologize for Senator Obama's gaffe:

http://dubyadubya.wordpress.com/2008/03/07/ignatieff-soulmate-fired/

Ignatieff soulmate fired
March 7, 2008 · No Comments

Strange. We were looking for a connection between the Obama campaign and the Liberal party the other day because we thought how well this leak on NAFTA fit into the Liberal strategy to pin something, anything on Harper. And we found this.

    Obama’s foreign adviser was Ignatieff’s Harvard ’soulmate’When Samantha Power speaks at the Ottawa International Writers Festival, listeners will hear a woman with close ties to Parliament and maybe, one day, the White House … [link to source]

And then, what do you know, next thing she is fired.

    Samantha Power, an unpaid foreign policy adviser and Harvard professor, announced her resignation in a statement provided by the Obama campaign in which she expressed “deep regret.”

    “Last Monday, I made inexcusable remarks that are at marked variance from my oft-stated admiration for Senator Clinton and from the spirit, tenor and purpose of the Obama campaign,” she said. “And I extend my deepest apologies to Senator Clinton, Senator Obama and the remarkable team I have worked with over these long 14 months.”

    Power’s interview Monday was published Friday in a Scottish newspaper, even though she tried to keep it from appearing in print.

    “She is a monster, too - that is off the record - she is stooping to anything,” The Scotsman quoted her as saying. [link to source]

They don’t call Samantha the “genocide chick” for nothing we guess.

    Ms. Power is not the only one to give Mr. Obama advice on world affairs, but is usually cited as his senior foreign policy adviser, a position that could mean much for Canada if the Illinois senator wins the Democratic nomination and then takes the White House.

    Mr. Obama has already threatened to do considerable damage to NAFTA, the Canadian-American-Mexican free trade agreement that looms large over the Canadian economy. The positions taken by an Obama presidency on such global hotspots as Iraq, Afghanistan, Darfur and elsewhere could also all have huge repercussions in Canada. These are the issues on which Mr. Obama most leans on Ms. Power, who is already being touted in some circles as a leading candidate to be national security adviser or even secretary of state in an Obama White House.

Well, not any more.

    Canadians will have a chance to meet Ms. Power in April. Consider it the first visit from an unofficial Obama ambassador. Ms. Power will be the headliner and opening act at the Ottawa International Writers Festival on April 13 at Library and Archives Canada.

We wonder whether she will still come. Expect so. She’ll have lots of free time.

    Officially, Ms. Power will be in Ottawa to discuss her most recent book, Chasing the Flame, the story of a senior United Nations official, Sergio Vieira de Mello, who was killed by terrorists in 2003 in Iraq. But Ms. Power has other agendas at play, including a meeting with her old Harvard friend and colleague, Michael Ignatieff, the Liberals’ deputy leader and, some might argue, the Liberals’ next leader, especially if Stéph-ane Dion fares badly in the next federal election. Mr. Ignatieff and Ms. Power worked closely together at Harvard on human rights issues and have been labelled by some American political analysts as “soulmates.“

Interesting huh? But Sam is out, even though some people think she shouldn’t have stepped down.

    Former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski seems to think that departed Obama foreign policy adviser Samantha Power got a raw deal.

    In response to a request for reaction to her resignation earlier today, the office of Brzezinski—another of Obama’s foreign policy advisers—relayed the following statement: “I think an expression of regret for using an inappropriate description of Senator Clinton should have sufficed. And I don’t think she should have resigned.” [link]

Dion might not be unhappy though. If we were into conspiracy theories…
 
And a look at the new Republican ads. Will this be the theme for their campaign?

http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2008/03/we-can-we-must.html
 
Back to the Democrats. I strongly suspect the Clintons will lo literally anything to win the nomination, regardless of the consequences. I am also not as dismissive of the Republican campaign, they are starting now and defining the themes of the election months before the Democrats even start.

http://thehill.com/dick-morris/its-over-2008-03-06.html

It’s over
By Dick Morris
Posted: 03/06/08 06:02 PM [ET]

The real message of Tuesday’s primaries is not that Hillary won. It’s that she didn’t win by enough. 

The race is over.

The results are already clear. Obama will go to the Democratic Convention with a lead of between 100 and 200 elected delegates. The remaining question is: What will the superdelegates do then? But is that really a question? Will the leaders of the Democratic Party be complicit in its destruction? Will they really kindle a civil war by denying the nomination to the man who won the most elected delegates? No way. They well understand that to do so would be to throw away the party’s chances of victory and to stigmatize it among African-Americans and young people for the rest of their lives. The Democratic Party took 20 years to recover from the traumas of 1968 and it is not about to trigger a similar bloodletting this year.

John McCain’s nomination guarantees that the superdelegates wouldn’t dare. A perfectly acceptable alternative for most Democrats, McCain would harvest so large a proportion of Obama’s votes if Hillary steals the nomination that he would probably win. Even putting Obama on the ticket would not allay the anger of his supporters; it would just make him complicit in the robbery.

Will Hillary win Pennsylvania? Who cares? Even if she were to sweep the remaining primaries and caucuses by 10 points, she would move just 60 votes closer to Obama’s total of elected delegates. And she won’t sweep them all. Even if Hillary wins Pennsylvania, the largest prize up for grabs, Obama will probably win North Carolina, which is almost as large. He’s likely to win Mississippi and Wyoming and has a good shot in Oregon and Indiana. The most likely result of these coming contests is that Obama will be roughly where he is now, about 140 elected delegates ahead of Hillary.

Suppose that Hillary will carry those states by enough to offset Obama’s delegate lead. The proportional representation system makes a knockout impossible and so mutes relatively narrow victories as to make them almost inconsequential. Little Vermont, with 600,000 people, gave Obama a net gain of four delegates, half of what Hillary won from the Texas primary, a state with 20 million residents. Even after Hillary won big-state victories in Ohio and Texas, she drew only 20 closer to Obama’s total of elected delegates.

Hillary won’t withdraw. That much is for sure. The tantalizing notion that 800 insiders can offset a season of primaries and caucuses will drive both Clintons to ever-escalating rhetoric. Will their attacks hurt Obama? Likely all they will achieve is to give him needed experience in the cut and thrust of media politics.

Left out of the entire equation is poor John McCain. Unable to get a word in edgewise and unsure of which Democrat to attack, he will have to watch from the sidelines as Hillary and Obama hog the headlines. If the superdelegates deliver the nomination to Hillary in the dead of night without leaving fingerprints at the crime scene, McCain’s nomination will be worth having. If Obama prevails, it won’t be worth the paper on which it is written. The giant killer, Obama will have soared to new heights of popularity and McCain won’t be able to bring him back to Earth in the nine weeks that will remain.

Suggestion for Obama:

The next time Hillary uses the recycled red phone ad, counter with one of your own. When the phone rings in the middle of the night, have a woman’s voice, with a flat Midwestern accent, answer it and say, “Hold on” into the receiver. Then she should shout, “Bill! It’s for you!”

Because with Hillary’s complete lack of any meaningful experience in foreign affairs, and her lack of the “testing” that she boldly claims, she’ll be yelling for Bill.

Morris, a former adviser to Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and President Bill Clinton, is the author of Outrage. To get all of Dick Morris’s and Eileen McGann’s columns for free by email, go to www.dickmorris.com.

Another long post, with interesting insights:

http://darrylwolkpolitics.blogspot.com/2008/03/my-thoughts-on-us-presidential-race.html
 
In listening to Dave Rutherford this AM, apparently Clinton is now cliaming that it was she, who set up an initial meeting, was responsible for solving the Irish troubles.....
 
Another view of Senator Obama. Frankly, if he and his wife have a hard time budgeting household expenses on a $500,000/year income (as she seems to say) then the Bush 3 trillion dollar budget will look like chump change in 2012 if he is elected President ;D. Not so funny are his formative influences described below.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0308/jkelly031008.php3?printer_friendly

Why the Obamas don't advertise their standard of living

By Jack Kelly
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Campaigning for her husband in Zanesville before the Ohio primary, Michelle Obama described to a group of women how hard it had been for her and Barack to make ends meet:

"We spend between the two kids, on extracurriculars outside the classroom, we're spending about $10,000 a year on piano and dance and sports supplements. And summer programs...Do you know what summer camp costs?"

The burden was especially heavy because she and Barack had to repay the student loans for college and law school at Princeton and Harvard:

"The salaries don't keep up with the cost of paying off the debt, so you're in your 40s, still paying off your debt at a time when you have to save for your kids," Michelle Obama said.

Actually, Michelle's salary has kept up pretty well. The University of Chicago Hospital, where she is vice president for community affairs, bumped her pay from $121,910 in 2004 to $316,962 after her husband was elected to the U.S. Senate that year. National Review's Byron York, who covered her remarks at the Zanesville Day Nursery, noted that her new salary is roughly ten times the median household income in Muskingham County.

The Obamas also have Barack's salary as a U.S. Senator ($169,300), royalties from his two best selling books, and an undisclosed amount of income from her service on six corporate boards. But this hasn't brightened Michelle's outlook:

"We have become a nation of struggling folks who are barely making it every day," Michelle had said at a black church in South Carolina in January. "Folks are just jammed up, and it's gotten worse over my lifetime... The life that I'm talking about that most people are living has gotten progressively worse since I was a little girl."

Mrs. Obama was counting her husband and herself among the folks who are just jammed up, reported Lauren Collins of the New Yorker, who was at the Pee Dee Union Baptist Church in Cheraw when Michelle spoke there.

"You're looking at a young couple that's just a few years out of debt," Mrs. Obama said. "See, because we went to these good schools, and we didn't have trust funds." It is, apparently, America's fault that the Obamas didn't have trust funds, and unfair that they had to repay their student loans. We're a country that is "just downright mean," Mrs. Obama said.

It is true that some people in America are having trouble making ends meet. Some people in America always are having trouble making ends meet. But what Michelle Obama said is astounding. She was born in 1964. At the time, segregation was still legal. Governors in Alabama, Arkansas and Mississippi stood in schoolhouse doors to prevent blacks from attending college.

"The per capita income of African-Americans has risen sixteen-fold over the last 40 years," noted John Podhoretz of Commentary. "Black home ownership has risen tenfold. The black poverty rate has declined from 75 percent to 25 percent." But this is, I suppose, meaningless if you think piano lessons and summer camp are among the things government should guarantee everyone. Whatever gratitude Michelle Obama has for the opportunities America has provided her are overwhelmed by her resentment that some others have more than she does.

Husbands and wives often have different political views, so we should not assume Barack shares the chip on Michelle's shoulder.

But "Spengler," the erudite cynic who writes for the Asia Times, thinks the women in his life are a clue to the inner Barack. His mother, Ann Dunham, was a communist sympathizer, he noted. A childhood mentor who Barack praised in his autobiography was Frank Marshall Davis, a prominent member of the Communist Party USA. "Radical anti-Americanism, rather than Islam, was the reigning faith in the Dunham household," Spengler said.

"Barack Obama is a clever fellow who imbibed hatred of America with his mother's milk, but worked his way up the elite ladder of education and career," Spengler said. "He has the empathetic skill set of an anthropologist who lives with his subjects, learns their language, and elicits their hopes and fears while remaining at an emotional distance. That is, he is the political equivalent of a sociopath."

Spengler's is a minority view. But if he's right, we shouldn't wonder why Barack won't wear an American flag pin in his lapel.

BTW, Dr Condeleezza Rice is the anti Michelle Obama, who also grew up under segregation and economic hardship (no trust funds.....) but despite or because of this has become the most powerful woman in the world today as Secretrary of State and #4 in the line of succession. Makes you wonder about the "nurture vs nature" argument.
 
Back
Top