The tired and overwrought analysis on Hillary Clinton’s mathematical impossibility of winning the Democratic nomination is old news.
She has been using a new equation. It’s yet another far-reaching scenario, because…
…somehow, a number of Clinton supporters have come to identify the seating of Michigan and Florida not merely with Clinton’s prospects but with the causes of democracy and feminism — an equation that makes a mockery of democracy and feminism.
Clinton herself is largely responsible for this absurdity. Over the past couple of weeks, she has equated the seating of the two delegations with African Americans’ struggle for suffrage in the Jim Crow South, and with the efforts of the democratic forces in Zimbabwe to get a fair count of the votes in their presidential election.
Somehow, I doubt that the activists opposing Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe would appreciate this equation.
Presuming Hillary Clinton is not going to be the Democratic candidate in the Fall presidential elections, the media have been sizing up the battle between the two very different worldviews of the men who would be president.
The presidential election, lawyers and scholars agree, will offer voters a choice between two sharply different visions for the ideological shape of the nation’s federal courts.
Senator John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive Republican nominee, has already asserted that if elected he would reinforce the conservative judicial counterrevolution that began with President Ronald Reagan by naming candidates for the bench with a reliable conservative outlook.
Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign is in a troubled stretch, hindered by resignations of staff members, a lagging effort to build a national campaign organization and questions over whether he has taken full advantage of Democratic turmoil to present a case for his candidacy, Republicans say.
In interviews, some party leaders said they were worried about signs of disorder in his campaign, and if the focus in the last several weeks on the prominent role of lobbyists in Mr. McCain’s inner circle might undercut the heart of his general election message: that he is a reformer taking on special interests in Washington.
Religion and politics not only go together, as both parties realize this year maybe more than ever, they are actually inseparable. Everything comes down to morality and how it informs choices.
The media tracking the Catholic vote in support of Hillary Clinton have missed the deeper point that the traditional relationship between Catholics and the Democratic party has changed. Scholars like Princeton Professor Robert George and EPPC fellow Colleen Carroll Campbell have lamented that publicly. It was the party of their fathers and grandfathers. It represented social justice and the defense of the defenseless.
Archbishop Charles Chaput has an excellent commentary at First Things on his own involvement in the party before it turned from defending ultimate human rights and began embracing abortion.
As a loophole, a grisly procedure was developed to avoid infanticide charges. In that procedure, officially known as “Intact dilation and extraction” the child is partially delivered feet-first up to the neck. Then, only inches from birth, a hole is made in the child’s skull and her brains are sucked out. Thus, by the time the delivery is complete, the baby is dead and criminal liability is avoided.
The elections, politics, the news….the pretense is that the people are at the heart of it all.
In reality, it’s about the candidates, the politicians, the media, and always George W. Bush.
When President Bush made the remark in Israel about people who talk about appeasement, Sen. Barack Obama angrily accused Bush of taking shots at him while on a diplomatic trip in the Middle East. One of the articles on this quoted White House press secretary Dana Perino as saying candidates who run for president tend to think everything is about them. It became a back & forth thing over the weekend in the media, whether or not Bush really intended to imply Obama is after appeasement with rogue dictators.
In the separation of powers under US federalism, the states have rights through their own electoral process to determine how they will be governed. In California, activist judges overturned the will of the people in their ruling yesterday about same-sex marriage. While the celebrating is still going on in the gay community, people who successfully established laws before that define marriage in its traditional form are working to re-establish them.
The last time the state’s voters were asked to express their views on same-sex marriage at the ballot box was in 2000, the year after the Legislature enacted the first of a series of laws awarding spousal rights to domestic partners.
Proposition 22, which strengthened the state’s 1978 one-man, one-woman marriage law with the words “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California,” passed with 61 percent of the vote.
This presidential election has made even the hint of such discrimination practically toxic. But there’s one category of bigotry that’s not only still permitted, it’s become trendy.
Age discrimination. I’ve been saying this for weeks as the jokes about John McCain continue to ramp up across the media spectrum, and not only on the comedy shows. Now, Politico is saying it, too. Or…at least Jonathan Martin is.
There are few safe harbors these days for making fun of people. Race, gender, religion are all effectively off-limits.
Yet age is still deemed as an OK topic to joke about (perhaps because it’s something most everybody will eventually encounter and isn’t limited to one minority segment of society?).
Define relevance. Nealy all the media started reporting after Indiana’s primary that Hillary Clinton was “Toast”. Is she?
Here’s a good roundup of what some of the big ones are saying.
Sen. Hillary Clinton scored one of the biggest victories of the Democratic primary yesterday, defeating Sen. Barack Obama 67%-26% (with John Edwards, long out of the contest, pulling 7%). However, the consensus in the media this morning is that the victory means little, because Obama has already effectively sewn up the nomination.
They’re virtually all saying the same thing.
The New York Times reports in a front page story that Clinton won a “strong” victory over Obama, but with Obama “still solidly ahead of Mrs. Clinton in the delegate fight, the West Virginia results are unlikely to adversely affect Mr. Obama’s chances of winning the nomination.” The Washington Post reports on its front page that…
click here to read whole article and make comments
Sheila Reports promises a perspective here that you may not be getting in mainstream media and the politically charged blogosphere. Don’t expect political correctness, because politics doesn’t determine what’s correct. This space is grounded in the natural law and moral order. And it expects civility, goodwill and an openness to truth and reason.