The End of an Era?

While providing hours of entertainment, the Democratic presidential campaign is beginning to reveal something that I thought would never happen. Are the Clintons finally toast?
During the 90's, Bill ran as a centrist DLC member who wasn't going to shake things up too much, even though he would have liked to. Gays in the military? After the disastrous introduction, it settled into the perfectly unsatisfactory "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Throw in welfare reform, which he opposed until he knew it was going to pass with bipartisan majorities, and which he promptly trumpeted as his idea, and you have someone who was always so quick to exploit a situation to his advantage. Even if it meant compromising on his principles. Okay, that may not be true, since I am not even sure that he has any principles besides winning.
But the height of chutzpa, had to be the Lewinsky business. When the story first broke, his polling told him that if he admitted it, he would have to resign or he would have been impeached. But by dragging it out, he was able to get enough people outraged at Republicans for noticing that the emperor had no clothes, and somehow conveyed the idea that lying under oath was just about sex, so it was okay. Never mind abuse of power, perjury, or just plain fecklessness, his political jujitsu made his prosecutors the bad guys.
He could only do this with the complicity of the main stream media. Their unwillingness to ask questions that they knew would result in embarrassment offered a shield of invincibility that could not be broken. In fact, I sometimes wonder why the whole Superdelegate group isn't populated by the media, since their impact has been so great in protecting Democrats.
But that aside, I assumed that Hillary would benefit from the same protectionism that Bill had enjoyed. Now, there is no way that Hillary is as astute as Bill in being able to manipulate people, but surely, Bill wanted back in the White House so much, he would do anything to make her get there. If he is, it isn't working any more.
Mark Steyn has a good commentary on the present Hillary situation. I keep waiting for her to start complaining that Obama is a part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy that has been haunting her and Bill since they first emerged as the power couple of Little Rock.
Without the power that Bill used to wield, the Superdelegates just may not hand her the election like she expects. The problem for the Democrats though, is that I don't think that the "Smartest Woman in the World" is going to pick up on that until the convention.
After she is denied that which she feels is rightfully hers, there are two possibilities that come to mind. First, she withdraws gracefully, goes on to win the Senate Majority leader position, and carries water for the Obama Presidency.
Sorry, it's hard to type that while rolling on the floor, doubled up with laughter.
The other possibility: She uses every tool in her toolshed to defeat Obama. That way she will be in a good place to go again in 2012 without all the unpleasantness of a Carter-Kennedy feud.
In my lifetime, there have been some impressive achievements. The Space Age, Viet Nam, Watergate, Reagan, the end of the Cold War, the end of the Soviet Union and the rise of Islamo-fascism. Now I get to add to that the exposure of the hypocrisy of the Clintons.
Aren't you glad to be alive to see it?

How Courts Should Be

The Corner has an article where Scalia is complaining about the press coverage of their decisions. As noted:

He singled out for criticism a New York Times editorial on the case headlined "No Recourse for the Injured." The media often make it appear as though the court is reaching policy judgments on its own rather than basing its decisions on the text of the law at issue in a case, Scalia said.

The Court's purpose is not to create new policy - like Affirmative Action. It's purpose is to discern what the law is, not what it should be. Fixing it is the province of the Legislature.
Now, if everyone would just get to work doing their own jobs. . . .

New blog in Dextra

Wiley Coyote of Big Sky Cairn has been added to the Dextra feed, and I want to be one of the first to officially welcome him. He always has a good read, and is well worth your time.
Craig set up Dextra, and it has been a real help to see the new posts pop up and go straight to them. Makes navigation and keeping informed easier yet. Thanks Craig.

Arrogance defined

Al Gore is at it again. He says that

"those who still doubt that global warming is caused by man - among them, Vice President Dick Cheney - are acting like the fringe groups who think the 1969 moon landing never really happened, or who once believed the world is flat."

His arrogance is worthy of those in Galileo's opposition, rather than those who dispute the "consensus" idea as being evidence of a scientific fact.
It is easy to explain if you consider that the 1969 moon landing has occurred. That means that you can either prove it happened, or it did not happen. Global catastrophe as Gore is peddling is a prediction. Predictions are not yet proof. You can say that you have indications that support the prediction, but that still doesn't mean that it is going to happen.
But it is indicative of the weakness of his argument that he resorts to ad hominen attacks. Hey, when all else fails, call the other side stupid. You won't be right, but it will put them on the defense.

You Will Suffer, and You Will Like It!

The requirements to provide basics of life to a guest (known as the inkeeper rule) such as air, water and sanitary facilities was just too onerous for the airlines. So they sued, and they won. All of us whiny passengers are just going to have to put up with it, so sit back, shut up, and don't expect anything from the airlines.
The funny thing is, that if a prisoner is being transported on one of the planes stuck out on the tarmac, the prisoner could sue. Because it would be court ordered transport, this would certainly fit a violation of the cruel and unusual clause.
The paying passengers? Well, ya pays your money, ya takes your chances.

We're #1 (Almost)

In corporate tax rates among developed nations. We are working hard on catching up to Japan which is only about .3% higher than our rates. The data are shown on tables at this link.
And no one seems to understand that at less than 100% tax rate, corporations don't pay a dime in taxes. It is just a cost passed on to us the consumer.
The only reason I can see for complaining about corporate tax rates as being too low, is because they are non-human entities and can't complain. The truth is, they don't care. Yes it reduces the amount of dividend to be paid to their investors, but the consumer is always going to be paying the tax, so no big loss right?
Unless you are the consumer.

They Just Won't Give Up

According to the Corner of National Review, the DC government is in fear that their oppressive gun control ordinances are going to be tossed into the garbage (as they should be). So, in anticipation of this, the police are now going door to door and asking permission to search houses. If you voluntarily give up your gun then you won't be charged with a law that is about to become unconstitutional.
In the meantime, you are being asked to give up your right to remain free from unreasonable searches, and to be secure in your home and papers.

Aren't these the same people that we want to hand health care over to?

Sometimes, You just have to say "Wow"

Pogie at Intelligent Discontent has an excellent post that everyone should read. At first, I will admit that I was waiting for him to drop the straw man setup and then lower the boom. To say that I was wrong about him is not enough. I am ashamed that I did stereotype my prediction of what I thought he was going to write. But I am also proud of the examples that he gave.
And he is right, that as conservatives we should call out those uncivil sorts who degrade the discussion. We don't have to wait for the Left to do it. We should just do it because it is right.

Well Done Sir.

Isues in Affirmative Action

JLK in comments below raised the issue of Affirmative Action, which is something that I have been thinking about posting on for some time. Part of this is due to Senator Obama's call to have a dialog on race, and part of it is just plain old fairness. For a primer that isn't very long, nor very nuanced (those conservatives are wrong to oppose it) this piece is a good start.
As Lyndon Johnson once said, you don't just take the chains off a man and expect him to run the 100 yard dash and be successful do you? Affirmative Action today also relies on the notion of a stigma for having suffered from slavery and Jim Crow laws that somehow has been buried in the genes. Which makes Obama interesting, since his father did not suffer from being descended from slaves.
But the problem with Affirmative Action is the general illogic of it. In the most recent AA case to be heard by the Supreme Court, Justice O'Conner said that AA is fine for 25 more years, but after that it would become unconstitutional.
Think about that for a minute - the calendar being used to decide what is constitutional or not. How is that possible? Because the Supreme Court punted on a constitutional issue, instead of sending it back to the Congress. You got to love outcome based decisions. Think Plessy v. Ferguson as another.
The real issue for Affirmative Action is the idea that there are limited slots that are coveted for something, whether schools or jobs, and that based on historical analysis that one group has been overrepresented at the expense of another group. But the people who are competing for the slots have not necessarily benefited from that over representation and they are being made to sacrifice for that which they had no actual fault.
When competing for the scarce resource, you can divide the applicants into three groups: Those who are so exceptional they would get the slot anyway; those who are so unqualified, that should they even get the slot, they would be unable to compete and will be let go for the good of the institution, and; those in the great middle. The bubble that is being used to adjust for past sins.
So, let's run some thought experiments and see where we come out, shall we. Let's say that two people are competing to enter college, both are black and male and both have identical scores. Now, let's make one the son of a black millionaire and one the son of a sharecropper from Alabama. The preferred result should be the sharecropper son who gets the slot. Affirmative Action would work most effectively by giving the sharecropper's son the opportunity to break out of the poverty that he comes from.
Now change the sharecropper's son from black to white. The argument is that the son of a black physician should get the slot because he has not benefited from being white. Ask the son of the sharecropper how much advantage he has over the son of the physician. Change it again, and make the son of the sharecropper into the daughter of the sharecropper. Does that change who gets in?
Affirmative Action has been shown to be more palatable if it is based solely on economic class, than racial makeup. This would still have a benefit for the white sharecropper because there are more whites in poverty than blacks. But black poverty is proportionately over represented as a share of the general population, so that they would have a greater opportunity to take advantage than the poor white applicant.
Of course, this does not take into account so called "legacy" allotments. (Cue Mark T.). But to use Mark's argument against him, legacys are not necessarily successful beyond the original generation (think GWB).
We need to help people rise up from an economic disadvantage and maximize their potential. That is always going to be preferential to trying to remedy past wrongs based on the actions of others.

Obama, "Conversation on Race" and Steyn

Mark Steyn does an excellent analysis on Obama's problems with his "pastor." For the few people in the world who do not know about it (which incidentally includes my oldest who is a firm Obama believer) here is an example:



Obama's speech last Tuesday, was to open a dialog on race in America. While doing so, he threw his grandmother in with the likes of Bull Conner in order to explain why Obama has not said anything before about his "pastor." But it is interesting in that however you feel about his speech, it has opened a dialog that we have been forbidden to have, as Steyn has above.
Prior to the whole kerfluffle, White America was not allowed to address racism. That was the exclusive province of Black America. If a white person was to say "My God, the Black community is destroying itself with violence, out of wedlock births and drugs" that person would be considered a racist. If a black American addressed the same issues, it was usually in the context that it was all the result of racism. (See video above)
Fifteen years ago, I shared an office with the head of the Junior NAACP in Europe. We would often have wide ranging discussions, but I remember something that he said that essentially blamed all whites for some adverse impact on black Americans. When I pointed out that that was a racist statement, he corrected me by saying that blacks could never be racist. In other words, he used a racist statement to say that he could not be racist. Apparently the irony was lost on him. When you watch the video, you know that he was not alone in that assessment. I told him that it is hard to be considered an oppressor if I was to walk through Watts, or if your name was Reginald Denny. To be fair, the only reason that Denny didn't die that day was due to the courageousness of four black men who saved him from the mob and took him to the hospital.
Watching the news coverage of the Wright-Obama problems led me to see a member of the Black Panther Party who was explaining his party's support of Obama, support which was later taken off of his web page. During the segment, the interviewer asked the spokesman if what he was saying wasn't racist. The spokesman replied by again saying that blacks could not be racist because they never enslaved anyone, nor did they make up the KKK, nor pass Jim Crow laws.
Hmm, I have never owned slaves, find the KKK to be atrocious and have no understanding why the Democratic party would tolerate one in their midst and never passed nor relied on Jim Crow laws. Either I am black, or I am not a racist. But we are told so often (as shown by "Pastor" Wright) that all whites are racist. Again, assigning a quality to a whole people based on color is just another racists statement.
But even assuming arguendo that the travesties listed above by the BPP spokesman are the cause of all the evil in the black community, could someone please explain to me why in the 1950s, black high school and college graduation rates were three times what they are now. Or why out of wedlock births were only a fraction of what they are now.
Maybe the greatest thing about Obama's call to have a dialog on race is that we will actually have one, instead of saying "it's all whitey's fault." After all, there may be some benefit to people actually saying "Are you nuts?"

Troops in trouble

Everyone who reads this blog knows that I love the troops. But as a leader, you spend an awful lot of time keeping them from hurting themselves or someone else. Not necessarily through malicious acts as much as just unthinking acts. (think teenage boys, although in the military, it doesn't really matter what their age is).
But it was always a hoot to see how a troop could go beyond your best planning to keep them in line. This video is just such an example.

Ghost ride tank
by omurap666

God bless the troops.

On Freedom, Control and Morality

Roger Kimball has this thought provoking piece which starts out by noting Arnold Kling's discussion of Elliot Spitzer, and how the real issue is not a sexual liaison with a high priced prostitute, but rather how he and his ilk have this inflated view of themselves, and their own perceived need to impose on the rest of us their versions of how we should live our lives. It is this notion of self importance which leads them to "making extravagant promises that only result in expanded government power."
The article is too good to pass up, and I urge you to read the whole thing. But I would like to excerpt some of the best lines:

At the center of the totalitarian impulse is the belief that, at bottom, freedom belongs only to the state, that the individual should not be treated as a free actor but rather, as Lenin put it, “‘a cog and a screw’ of one single great Social-Democratic mechanism.”

“What socialism implies above all,” said Lenin, “is keeping account of everything.”

and finally:

What we have seen in recent years is a hideous marriage of political correctness and bureaucratic triumphalism. The offspring are the multitude of soft tyrannies we see all about us today—that and an enervation of spirit that renders the public ever less able to respond to the casual indignities that have become such a prominent part of daily life.

Why have we surrendered so much control to those who are ostensibly our servants? I supposes like above, we grow weary of the constant battle with tyrants who man every barricade erected by the government - from the DMV to the local justice courts. But everyone of them derives their power and authority from us - the sovereign people who have agreed to form the government for our own interests.
But we also have to acknowledge that friction caused by our own fellow citizens. Political correctness and moral relativism are two tools used to control us as well. Political correctness by circumscribing our language, and ostensibly our thoughts, seeks to limit speech, usually by claiming some version of victimhood as a way to paralyze those who would disagree with our supposed moral betters. Moral relativism being just another variant. For instance, in my earlier post on Islam and Evil both Mark T. and Missoula Pagan don't decry the barbarism complained of, instead they point out that at some time or another, Western Civilization was just as bad. Hmm, in that case, only the perfect could denounce beheadings, female genital mutilations, or other acts of perfidy. I guess that would leave it to God to be the only entity that could criticize such acts. I bet that thought would drive Missoula Pagan crazy.
But as I have said to Mark before, moral relativism is neither moral, nor relative. Instead, it is a call to inaction. A demand that no criticism be broached because of whatever happened in the 15th Century or something more recent by no organized or official group means that those who would enact 7th Century barbarism are not to be challenged. Excuse me? I have not led a morally exemplar life, but right is right, and wrong is wrong, and it ain't that hard to tell the difference.

Political Follies

At the end of December, I had made some predictions about who the nominees would be for their respective party nominations. I followed it up with an update about two weeks later which presciently analyzed the state of the Democratic race. So far, my predictions that McCain will be the nominee has come true. The Democratic race is far more fun since it isn't over yet. But as Jonah Goldberg notes, the race is coming down to the wire, and it looks like one of those old time movies of two locomotives racing headlong to a collision with each other.
The tenacity of Hillary Clinton to persist, even though she can't win the nomination without the help of superdelegates is definitely having an adverse effect on Obama's coronation. Of course, Obama is not doing such a bad job of self destructing either. So, maybe Hillary has grounds to hang around. After all, should she drop out and Obama gets the full scrutiny that he has avoided for so long, she could become the nominee simply because of Barak's inability to deal with adversity. It would be just as valid as if she had won all of the delegates herself. Except, there are going to be a lot of bruised feelings by the former Obama supporters. And let's face it, Hillary cannot make a plausible case for taking the superdelegates if Barak hangs in there that will satisfy anyone. It also reinforces the idea that blacks will "have to wait their turn." I think that they are through waiting, and will take it out on Hillary by either sitting this one out, or possibly even going to McCain.
Right now, McCain is tied with both Hillary and Barak, and this without all of the press that the two Democratic candidates have been given to his exclusion. If you figure that either Democratic candidate would secure approximately 46-47% of the electorate, which is the same for McCain, the battle will come down to the 6-7% who don't like either of the major party candidates. And since Hillary will have to take a hard left to try and recapture disaffected Obama voters, that will alienate the magic 6-7% who are going to decide the election. McCain will do better with them than she will. In fact, the thing that Republicans hate most about McCain is his ability to connect with the disaffected and unaligned middle, which could give him a 3-4% victory, which nowadays is considered a landslide.
Should Obama somehow prevail and get the nomination, Jonah thinks that Hillary will use the vaunted Clinton machine to actively destroy Barak. Can't you just imagine candidate Obama's anger when they find out that Hillary is feeding Republicans negative stories that will drive down his numbers? Even if they just ask the question - "Why is there no 'there,' there?" they will probably end the best chance for Barak to become President.
The upshot of all this is that if Hillary is the nominee, her negatives will be so high that she cannot win the election against McCain. If Obama is the nominee, he will be fighting a two front war that the Democrats have never had to deal with before.
Sorry folks, but it looks like the old geezer will become President in 2009. The question will be if the Democratic party can withstand the damage that they will do to themselves.

Stop Digging Geraldine!

The above post starts with the headline, and I am not making this up: "Geraldine Ferraro: Don't call me a racist, you racist!!" Apparently, it stems from her comment that the only reason that Barak Obama is doing so well is because he is black. (Why am I always the last to know?)
When you compare her comment now with what she said 20 years ago:

And former representative Geraldine A. Ferraro (D-N.Y.) said Wednesday that because of his "radical" views, "if Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race."

Now, Jesse Jackson is a race baiting hustler who was only taken seriously in 1988 because of white guilt. Barak Obama is no Jesse Jackson. While I disagree with almost all of his positions, and have the nagging feeling that I am being fed a bill of goods, he does not exploit the fact that he is a black man to get where he is.
If anything, he underplays it, which enhances his appeal in my opinion. For Ferraro to fail to realize that what she said is stupid, and then to assume the glorious mantle of actually being the one who is the victim here is absolutely delicious.
In times of stress character is revealed. Geraldine is obviously under a lot of stress.

On Islam and Evil

The Corner has this which details an attempted "honor killing." In relevant part:

A 19-year-old Israeli Arab woman has survived an attempted "honor killing" by her brother on Tuesday in the Arab village of Na'ura, near Afula, after two bullets fired at her head shattered on impact, failing to penetrate her skull.

Paramedics said the girl survived by playing dead, leading her brother to stop shooting and kicking her. He proceeded to dial emergency services, telling paramedics: "I just shot my sister."

The 24-year-old suspect was warmly praised by some members of his family for the attempted murder. He is in police custody.

What brings this to mind, is that I had just finished reading this which asks the question "Should Islam be banned for barbaric acts?" Try to find another more inflammatory headline, I dare you. But there were some interesting points made in the article. Such as:

The issue of Muslim "barbarism", including honor killings and other forms of violence against women, has risen in prominence in Europe's political agenda. The question appears to be: Do Muslims commit barbaric acts because they are bad Muslims or because they are good Muslims? Does Islam as such promote barbarism or suppress it?

The Arab News, which is the widest read English language news service in Saudi Arabia published this where they threaten all sorts of violence against Western Nations that portray the Prophet Mohammed as a cartoon crazy.
Ah, Life imitating Art, or vice versa?
One of the things that you learn as you grow older, is to not bother the crazy guy who is mumbling to himself. You try to be polite, as you would with any other human being, but your guard is up because you just can't predict their actions. This seems to be the technique that the West has been using with radical Islam.
Try to defend female genital mutilation, or wife beating, or beheading, or suicide bombings of markets, or . . . .
If you can, I would consider your argument, in a polite way, hoping that your mumbling doesn't suddenly explode into an irrational rage. Just like the Middle East.

McCain Channeling Churchill?

Bad Lawyer Joke

CrimProf has this piece about a prison paralegal who helped an inmate to write a successful appeal to the US Supreme Court on the legality of his sentence. Getting heard by the Supreme Court is just about impossible, but to do it pro se is even more incredible.
Then, to top it all off, the South Carolina Bar is looking to prosecute the paralegal for practicing law without a license (I guess because he was successful).
The South Carolina Bar Association would be better off admitting the paralegal. At least he can recognize a justiciable case.

Hats are Flying

Well, it's that silly time of the year, when an old man's fancy turns to saying "What the Heck" and submits his name to be a candidate for public office.

Yes, it's true, I am running for House District 96, to try and protect the fundamental values as enshrined in the Montana and US Constitutions. My basic campaign last time was that I would leave everyone alone, and somehow, some people still voted for me. We'll see how it goes this time. Last time, Carol of Missoulaopolis was my opponent in the primary and she trounced me. Of course, she worked for it. I was hoping that she was going to run for this district again, but rumor has it that she may be going for bigger game. Good Luck Carol.

This time, I think that my campaign should be - "First do no harm." We have too many eager busy bodies who are out there trying to tell us Montanans what to do, think or say. I plan to stand astride the bulwark of this sort of nonsense.

Wish me luck, or if not, send a campaign contribution.

Reminiscing about Eastern Montana

Craig Sprout does an excellent review of the movie "Class C." I saw the movie on Monday as well, and I am really impressed with it. The movie should be up for an Oscar for best documentary if there is any justice in the world.
What was very impressive was the cinematography of the flatter side of this great State of ours. Watching a train in the distance rolling across the vast empty, or an abandoned schoolhouse watching the tormenting clouds roll along the skyline, it reminds me of my limited time in Dotson, where my grandparents lived until they died.
My grandfather was typical of people in that area of his generation. Part time farmer/blacksmith/mechanic/and anything else that needs to be done. He had the best garage in the world for a kid to play in. Filled to the brim with tools, although we loved the pedal powered grinder the best. Makes me think that if he were to harness such a device to a turbine we could solve most of our electricity problems by having kids jumping on the pedals.
He used to take me to Claypool's General Store where you would present your shopping list to the clerk who would then run around and pull it off the shelf for you. Wasn't a lot of choices, but maybe we don't need all that we have now. After shopping, the clerk would wrap your purchases in brown paper with twine to hold it together, and we would trudge dutifully home, sucking on the penny candy that he always offered.
I will never forget the mosquitoes that were the size of hummingbirds, or the snowdrifts that would pile up on the lee side of buildings, leaving the rest of the ground bare. Nor will I ever forget the most fantastic sunsets, something that we in the mountain regions don't have. I remember riding with him when he would do the RFD mail deliveries and watching the antelope keeping pace with us, and the carcass of one of them that decided to go through the wire instead of over it.
We moved to Deer Lodge when I was seven, and to Hamilton when I was ten. When my grandmother came to visit us in the Bitterroot valley, she always complained of claustrophobia, but when I was older and visited her, I had the feelings of insecurity, especially when it was overcast and you had no idea what direction you were heading.
The movie brought back these and so many other memories, but it is also detailing what we are losing as more and more farms turn to CRP and the farmers move to Arizona and live off the checks for growing grass. The disappearance of people from the highline, from Shelby to Scobey is something that we are going to all miss someday.
And we will all be poorer for the loss.

Why Hillary won?

NRO had this:

The media picked McCain and Rush picked Hillary.

Apparently, Rush told his listeners to vote for Hillary to keep the race alive and throw it to the convention.
It would be a heck of a deal if the margin of victory for Hillary in Ohio and possibly Texas would be due to ditto heads.

Just for Mike H.

Humor always has an element of truth to it. This is just such an example.

Dan Rather, Katie Couric, and an Israeli commando were captured by terrorists in Iraq. The leader of the terrorists told them that he would grant them each one last request before they were beheaded.

Dan Rather said, "Well, I'm a Texan, so I'd like one last bowlful of hot spicy chili."

The leader nodded to an underling who left and returned with the chili.

Rather ate it all and said, "Now I can die content."

Katie Couric said, "I'm a reporter to the end. I want to take out my tape recorder and describe the scene here and what's about to happen. Maybe someday someone will hear it and know that I was on the job till the end."

The terror leader directed an aide to hand over the tape recorder and Couric dictated some comments. She then said, "Now I can die happy."

The leader turned and said, "And now, Mr. Israeli tough guy, what is your final wish?"

"Kick me in the ass," said the soldier."

"What?" asked the leader? "Will you mock us in your last hour?"

"No, I'm not kidding. I want you to kick me in the ass," insisted the Israeli.

So the leader shoved him into the open and kicked him in the ass.

The soldier went sprawling, but rolled to his knees, pulled a 9 mm pistol from under his flak jacket, and shot the leader dead. In the resulting confusion, he jumped to his knapsack, pulled out his carbine and sprayed the terrorists with gunfire.

In a flash, all terrorists were either dead or fleeing for their lives.

As the soldier was untying Rather and Couric, they asked him, "Why didn't you just shoot them in the beginning? Why did you ask them to kick you in the ass first?"

"What?" replied the Israeli, "and have you two assholes report that I was the aggressor?!

Hat tip: The Israeli Insider

Why Hillary is Failing

At the above link is an article from the LA Times about why Hillary's campaign is failing. I think that they need to go a little further back, and they will find that the real reason is the power of the activists on the Democratic side.
Last summer, Hillary was the presumptive nominee. She had the name, the Clinton machine, and lets face it, no real challenger. As a result, she started to run a general election sort of campaign, where she tacked right. What she failed to appreciate was the charm and charisma of the junior Senator from Illinois.
Since Hillary was taking a more moderate approach, she quickly became vulnerable to those on the Left whose only issue was to end the war. Popular and easy to explain, even though the reality is that it is extremely complex and the consequences are not easy to understand or predict, the issue was used by Obama to beat the heck out of her for her vote in support of going to war. At first, she refused to apologize, (what horror), but by January, she had to renounce for the first time her vote. Blaming it on Bush seemed to be the right move, since in the Democratic circles, Bush is the source of all evil.
But then she started to run on her "experience." This opened the door to attacks on her judgment, when coupled with her grudging acknowledgment that Bush fooled her, and her message becomes not only muddled, but vulnerable.
Once Hillary lost Iowa, her aura of invincibility faded quickly, to the point where she has lost the last 11 contests in a row. Amazingly, at least according to CNN, she is only around 100 delegates short of Obama.
Hillary is complaining that none of the media are treating Obama the same as she is being treated. I even heard some of the Sunday talking heads say that it is sexism. I don't think that it is, rather, I think that this is the normal level of inquisition that the press uses on Republicans. (Think about the coverage of Obama's supposed denouncement of Farrakhan versus Trent Lott or "Maccacca Allen).
The only hope that I see right now for Hillary is that the media are starting to take a more objective look at this "nice young man" and are finding problems. Like the last debate in which they are falling all over themselves to drop out of NAFTA, despite the damage it would do to the economy as a whole.
The only problem with waiting, is that Ohio and Texas are tomorrow. If Hillary loses both, she will probably be expected to drop out. Just about the same time that Obama starts to implode.
Gotta hand it to the Democrats - They have that circular firing squad down to a science.