Two Minorities, One Race
By Erik Rush (11/28/07)
I don't pay much credence to polls, or "how a candidate looks" in a given caucus state, especially with the general election still almost a year off. The candidates pay attention to these things though, not because of the potential trends they might represent, but the effect they could have on the public psychologically, and thereby their campaign's momentum and bearing.
Toward the end of last week, the media was abuzz with the news that Democrat contender Barack Obama had surged ahead of Hillary Rodham Clinton after the release of results from a Washington Post/ABC poll showing Obama with 30 percent support among likely Democratic caucus-goers to Clinton’s 26 percent. The “abuzz-ness” is a bit curious given the usual margin of error for such polls; four points hardly justifies the intensity of media coverage, but I’m not too proud to admit the familiar morbid attraction to feeding frenzies, so I’ll dispense with arguing for sensibility and get on with it.
My title evidently ascribes “minority” status to both of these individuals. For the sake of semantic precision, women obviously aren’t an actual minority inasmuch as they outnumber the male population; nevertheless, they have been recognized as such due to their historical position in a patriarchal society. I’m not making anything but an observation in this regard. Obama, of course, as the first black man to get this close to the White House to date, qualifies as an ethnic minority. It bears mentioning as well that the activist groups which traditionally “represent” these two minorities (among others) have typically been exceedingly Left-leaning. In any case, many reading this undoubtedly see the choice of either Clinton or Obama for Chief Executive as simply two among a pantheon of seething, fetid, freedom-devouring demons.
Suffice it to say it is pretty apparent at this juncture that:
1. These “likely Democratic caucus-goers” haven’t the slightest clue as to what Barack Obama is about (upon which I have written at length), however,
2. Some are beginning to get a clue as to what Hillary Clinton is about, and
3. The media, though left-leaning, hasn’t gotten its marching orders yet with respect to which Democrat they will eventually surreptitiously support.
You see, there’s a very good reason I don’t believe Obama will secure the Democrat Party nomination, or that he will be chosen as a running-mate by whomever does: Those on the far-Left are bigoted to the core (something else upon which I have written at length). As individuals they will never admit this because they literally don’t believe they’re bigoted given the rhetoric of brotherhood they preach and the support of entitlements and so forth. To the powerful on the far-Left, blacks and other minorities are tools, a means to an end. To like-minded far-Left white voters, they’re groups who “ought to be grateful” for Democrats’ largesse, and reciprocate by adopting lock-step, somnambulistic political philosophy and voting habits.
The power brokers of the Left will cut Obama’s legs out from under him – and perhaps even Clinton’s as well – before this is all over. Despite what is transpiring in plain view, remember that they will be asking themselves the questions:
1. Will their elitist, paternalistic base vote for a black man for President of the United States?
2. Will less dogmatic Democrats vote for a woman they think might be evil?
Clinton is losing ground because people (and Democrat voters are people) can tell she’s a snake. Those polled likely represent seekers who are buying into the pep talks given by Obama in recent weeks, despite the fact that they’re not much different from Clinton’s, albeit less shrill, and that they know less about him than most people who will read this account.
I have stated previously that I don’t find any among the current Republican candidates – at least, those whom I believe could realistically secure the nomination – particularly appealing, but consider: Even the least appealing of these are competent, experienced, confident men who do not possess the aforementioned (and deadly serious) liabilities of Obama or Clinton. If a clever 501c(3) started inundating the airwaves with a particular audio clip of Obama’s black militant pastor spewing anti-Americanism and profanity from the pulpit, it wouldn’t matter the stage of the race; his campaign would howl down the commode at warp speed. We already know that Clinton has a veritable “Pet Sematary” in her closet; it’s just a matter of her luck running out – or the Party leadership, donors and other behind-the-scenes players deciding she can’t win.
Then we must factor in the bugbear of domestic politics: Swing voters, who are far more discerning than either the Democrat or Republican leadership are comfortable with. These voters can no doubt see Clinton’s conceit and insincerity and Obama’s lack of substance. In Obama’s case, there is also the question of competence and the relative inexperience of a junior senator. Despite the “Keystone Conservatism” practiced by the Republican party over the last few years and the gleeful capitalization upon same by the media, for swing voters and Independents it’s still going to come down to visualizing one man or one woman behind that big desk in the Oval Office.
If that picture doesn’t appeal to them, the opponent gets the vote – and the Democrat leadership cannot afford to be in a position where the Republicans would have to run Quasimodo to lose the election.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Erik Rush
