Another angle on this.
Knowing everything you now know about Obama — including the fact that he thinks someone should be guilty of a felony if a burglar steals his gun and uses it to shoot someone — what would you guess would be his position? Well, that's exactly what it is. The doctrinaire liberal takes the doctrinaire liberal stance, as he did in 1996, all within the context of the new "nonpartisan" spirit he's bringing to Washington, mind you
"I am not in favor of concealed weapons," Obama said. "I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations."
As a commentator pointed out, this dovetails nicely with Obama's resistance to Missile Defense.
"He's also against Ballistic Missile Defense. Again, he doesn't want people to be able to defend themselves. Just negotiate with muggers and missiles, right Obamatron?" -Tony
Here's a little town you'd likely never have heard of.
And as Frank J of the excitable Imao.us notes. States that are Shall Issue conceal carry have crime rates go down when they open up gun rights.
John R. Lott Jr wrote a book on the statistics of this.
Marc Ambinder is no fawning fan of McCain, well neither am I, but lays out the interesting bit of biography at work here.
Private polling shared recently with McCain's strategists shows that, under the right conditions, Americans were ready to embrace McCain as the agent of change they've been waiting for. (Where have I heard that bef……oh…..) The polling, and the developing strategy, hinges on McCain's convincing those Obama-loving independents that McCain is known commodity who embodies change and that Obama's story is just that – a story and his rhetoric is mere words. Obama may run on his biography, but McCain will run as biography; he is who he says he is; you know him; you trust him; and you're comfortable with him. McCain is an open book; Obama is…well, more of a mystery.
There's a deeper, more holistic messaging attempt at work. McCain often likes to say that the country owes him nothing, but McCain owes the country everything. By contrast, McCain advisers believe that Obama's core message is arrogance: America has problems, and only Obama can fix them; he deserves the presidency. (An irony: the incarnation of JFK – Obama – cast as the foil to Kennedy's most famous maxim.)
Heh. It's the naked arrogance and concealment that irks me about Obama. He comes across as a confidence man. He tells you what you want to think and gets his fans worked up and so enamored with him that they don't pay attention to his past and what he's actually done. They believe in him. They may not be able to name anything he's done, but they have faith in what he will do. As I've mentioned before, Obama is growing a cult of personality.
A detailed analysis on how Hillary has a chance to get the popular vote, which would give her a strong argument (See Florida 2000 Gore versus Bush) that she should get the nod as the will of the people in the party.
It may be a long shot, but she has to take it. Consider the three cases here.
1) Hillary keeps in and wins the nomination
2) Hillary keeps in and looses to BHO and drops out after she's "gone down fighting"
3) Hillary bows out now (or some other "early" time) to preserver party unity.
The results make it pretty clear
1) She goes on and runs against McCain and could get to be president
2) She's shown that she can be tough and fight until the end. Goes to the Senate and has the option of trying again at the presidency. If BHO loses she'll get some of the blame, but she can use this as evidence that she would have been the stronger candidate and the Super Delegats were the real ones to screw the party.
3)b She gets labeled as a quitter, and if OBH loses she'll still get the blame. Both for weakening him and for quitting when she was the stronger candidate. This really hurts any future chances for her.
Most Americans do not like people that quit. We like people that risk big, that have confidence. If Hill can pull of Option 1 then she makes a strong case as both the comeback kid and the inevitable candidate and proves all the pundits wrong.
Option 3 is the one that hurts her the most, and since the stay/drop choice only divides between options 1 & 2 and option 3. She has no reason to drop out.
Hillary! cares more about her own ambitions than "party unity". And there's nothing that Howard Dean or BHO can do to get her to quit. There's nothing they can bribe her with (she's running for president and nothing short of that will do), and if they had blackmail that would work against her they would have already used it against her.
So that's why Hillary is staying in. She has a chance of getting the nomination if she does, but has no chance of getting it now, or ever again, if she drops out.
Wright racism versus Anti-Americanism. Which did BHO respond to?
More on BHO being a modern politcal confidance artist
Obama's glamour also accounts for some of his campaign's other stumbles. Plenty of candidates attract supporters who disagree with them on some issues. Obama is unusual, however. He attracts supporters who not only disagree with his stated positions but assume he does too.
...
Where optimists fill in mystery with their hopes, however, pessimists project their fears. The flip side of glamour is horror: the vampire, the con man, the femme fatale, the double agent. These glamorous archetypes remind us of how easy it is to succumb to desire and manipulation. What, ask his opponents, is Obama hiding?
...
More mundanely, the apparent effortlessness of his political career—the grace with which he seems to rise above ordinary politics—makes it harder for him to shrug off the unsavory allies who come with a career in Chicago, from indicted developer Tony Rezko to antigay preacher Rev. James Meeks. They spoil the fantasy.
Heh. All politicians are con-men (remember my comment on which is more likely? that your guy really IS perfect or that you're a rube?). Well, one of the best cons is to make it so that you're against the other con-men.
An article in that darth right wing madhouse known as Salon about how Hillary would be doing if the Democrats used Republican or general election style rules. Also shows how much BHO values the "will of the people". Heh.
"In the final analysis, though, the fights inside the Democratic Party aren't really about either an ideal American democracy or the American democracy that actually exists. According to the Obama campaign, democracy is defined as whatever helps Barack Obama win the Democratic nomination. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with a candidate arguing this way. But everybody should see it for what it is -- not something new or transformative, but one of the oldest ploys in the playbook of American politics."
From Victor Davis Hanson some general notes on events.
Including who's What?
Close your eyes and imagine. You hear one party demand tariffs and an end to free trade. Its supporters talk in terms of racial values and racial separateness, as it leaders calculate the white versus black vote state-by-state. It denounces the idea of protecting a democracy abroad from thugs and terrorists. And it has out-raised its counterpart over 3-1 in cash donations for political campaigning. Its nominating process is Byzantine and ultimately determined by the undemocratic votes of unelected Superdelegates accountable to no one. And this is all deemed "liberal."
Added:
Change! Hope! We won't be taking money from the rich. People power!
We can do it!
He's really different
No comments:
Post a Comment