The Vanishing Point

As this article explains, the contestants of the democratic party for the nomination as presidential candidate, now rake in so much campaign cash that ordinary spreadsheets become inadequate to handle the data. You need either specialized software or a program such as Microsoft Access (or perhaps the 2007 edition of Excel) if you want to scrutinize the campaign funding of the democratic presidential candidates. If you want to check out McCains funding, plain old Excel 2003 will do.

Can’t wait for the media-led outrage over the “democratic problem” of this obvious disparity of funding for different political parties…

Apparently, the ardent Hill-dawg refuses to give in, no matter how bleak the prospects of her nomination looks. She is hell-bent on dragging the Democratic party all the way through the mud, until virtually nothing is left for the Republicans to pick on during the presidential campaign. Her most recent attempts at stopping Obama, insinuates that she is the “white man’s vote”, and that only she can attract enough voters from “white working class people” to ensure a base that is broad enough to beat McCain. The big paradox of all of this racial talk, is that if it was enunciated by a Republican, all hell would have broken lose - especially the diatribe of moral condemnation from the Democratic party would have been deafening. In my opinion, Hillary is a huge hypocrite - she embodies everything I despise about the academic left: she positions herself upon a base of gender-equality, but never misses an opportunity to accentuate the fact that she is a woman (and hence we should elect her - so much for gender-equality). Its ridiculous - it reminds of all the proponents of racial equality that simultaneously advocates affirmative action. Anyways, this has all been said better before by people such as Peggy Noonan and Charles Krauthammer. Good thing we will soon be rid of her - untill the next presidential election at least.

Hvorfor har der stort set intet stået i de danske medier om denne affære? Rev. Wrights udtalelser i The National Press Club har cementeret billedet af ham som en gal ekstremist, og truer pt. med at begrave Obamas kampagne under et tungt lag af beskyldninger og mistanker om anti-patriotisme, skjulte motiver og utroværdighed. Til Hillarys store tilfredshed, naturligvis. Men jeg har intet kunnet finde på nogle af de store danske mediers hjemmesider (JP, Politiken og Berlingske). Hvorfor? Er det fordi at Obama er de danske mediers foretrukne kandidat, eller er der en speciel grund til at dette ikke er interessant, mens en meningsmåling der viser at Hillary kan slå McCain er…?

Obama, last sunday in a foolish remark, he has now had to withdraw partially:

“It’s not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

Of course Obama still believes this is true, in fact he believes it to be a sort of “truism”, but that it was meant more like a general statement than an absolute fact. The remarks have spawned the predictable attacks by Clinton, who undoubtedly shares his views, but luckily for her Obama was silly enough to say it first.

I have no doubt that people do unsympathetic things when they are feeling bitter (such as opposing free trade, as Obama correctly remarks ), but what do “guns” have to do with this? This has nothing to do with the collectivist notions that often arise in people’s heads, when they feel unjustly treated. If I felt bitter over being fired from work, would I rush to the pen to write my local representative to support free gun initiatives? It does not make sense. Perhaps it is just because “gun-support” for Obama is labeled under the category “bad things” along with racism, religious bigotry, chauvinism and other undesirable vices of humanity.

During the presidential primaries, Obama and Hillary Clinton have been struggling in fierce competition over who can be the most ardent anti-freetrade candidate for the democratic party. As this piece in Reason Magazine notes, it is quite paradoxical that the candidates ostensibly are so busily preoccupied with condemning NAFTA, when it was a democrat (Bill Clinton) who struck the deal. Indeed Bill Clinton comes out as one of the strongest supporters of free trade, if one compares him to other American presidents in the post-Roosevelt era. Yet he presided over a period of booming growth and prosperity in America. (more…)