Posted by
rycK on Tuesday, August 07, 2007 4:27:54 PM
The Clinton/Obama Race and the New York Times.
8.07.07
We marvel at the antics of politicos as they grope for power. [1] This process, a few thousand years old at least, gives us a false premise: that we can learn about what candidates actually believe, can predict their actions and can learn what their plans for the future might be, and, also, detect from these scanty polls who will surely win. All this is so much torrid fluff. This is the soggy stuff that politics is composted from.
Politics is the disgusting process of decision-making in groups and is not based on truth. It is based on the quest for power, and most neophytes in this arena, such as Obama, will fail at least once. The game here, following the descriptive and sometimes predictive elements of game theory, can be invoked by noting that when any player makes a move, the attributes of that maneuver can strongly influence the responsive (and usually reflexive) subsequent moves by the other players. As such, we experience some hot potato dances where public attention temporarily rises from some kind of misstatement or political blunder and the candidates blame each other and raise new ‘issues.’
Such is in the expert purview of the spin doctors. The NYT, a crude, low-level propaganda machine [2] of immense anti-American proportions recently make light of the fact that the two leading Democratic runners do not speak to each other. [3] They seem to believe that they can publish a counterfeit explanation of circumstances that need to be artfully altered to support their mindless liberal political views, publish the prize-winning article in their ruined rag and await the applause from the Gods, the good citizens on Jupiter or elsewhere in the Universe, all liberal Democrats and, even from their enemies. Such are the fevered images of Pinch Sulzberger, the Prince of Poltroonery, and his testosterone-free minions. Such is not the case. The NYT and other rags have merely denigrated their own image in the views of those who can rise above simple sophistry, yellow-dog liberalism and drug addiction. The NYT essentially says that there is nothing alarming in the cool relationships between the two uninteresting liberal candidates for the Democratic Party in a year or two. Sure, we all understand that. The political effect of Edwards, down to 12% and clearly finished as a contender, is not covered in detail here as, strangely so, he is considered a loser and potential loose cannon for the left if his mouth again spews more nonsense than his feeble neurons can assimilate and compile into rational speech.
The NYT does not, as usual, address the political facts unless they appear in the news as lightning bolts. The notions of: electing a woman or, electing a black candidate seem to be conveniently ignored by the New York Times and their tattered allies. Even the mention of such a clash would raise questions where the media artists who reside somewhat below the average might not recognize the danger and initiate some offensive dialogs between the candidates thus fomenting a war to the advantage of the Republicans. We seem to be missing a critical poll that points out preferences in voting that address gender and race. Not here yet. And more, given the history of Clintoonery that talks about being ‘black’ or a ‘black president’ and then not supporting leading black candidates and keeping their numbers to a minimum in the administration we might wonder when the clash will come. We have only to look at the last gubernatorial race in New York State with a black candidate where he was defunded and offered no support from the white left. They NYT and others knew he couldn’t win. So, they ignored him. Obama will insult Hillary and get a gracious offer to run with her?? Sure.
Now, with Mz. Clinton at 48% in this current and imprecise poll, the grand topic missing in the NYT analysis is the question: Why only 48%?? What is wrong with Hillary?? Were the leftist pundits right [or read left for right if you prefer here] when they said that Hillary is not electible? Can a woman win?? Can a black win?? Can a white/black pair win??? These are the topics of editorials the NYT dare not broach.
We are late in the game now given the very early start of this election process and to not have a wide majority lead at this times signals troubles with leading candidates. After eight years of Bush and more from Gingrich they have nothing to offer? The NYT supplies us with donkyisms in defense of the political wreckage from Kerry, algore and other sub-luminary species who fell from grace into disgrace. To think that Senator Obama can lose the nomination with, say, 45%, or more, of the delegates and then just fall out of sight in a whiff of smoke is not reasonable. [Have we forgotten the meteoric rise of Howard Dean and his sudden and ignominious fall the last round?] Senator Obama will want something more than a close second chance to a proven loser. He could run as an independent and secure a Republican victory for, say, Newt Gingrich or even Rush Limbaugh. Also, barking away at the Tree of Reason, the notion that a woman with a crusty past littered with crime, influence and dances with Marxism, can win the Oval Office with a black VP running mate is too absurd to even think about, although certain Republicans [Rudy Giuliani Says He’ll Beat a Clinton/Obama Dream Ticket] are suggesting that is a possible outcome of the race. [4] Such are the thorny tribulations of the NYT, who hailed most of the leftist losers in the last century as saviors of the Democratic or Socialist parties.
It appears as if the Democrats have, again, effectively gagged on the toxicity of the pulp of their own political correctness and other questionable political precepts known only to their leaders and have, as a summary: been persuaded to participate in the loss in 2008, as usual. We wonder if they reviewed the McGovern or Dukakis races for comparison. It is interesting that leftist seem to have no history of their own actions. A review of Presidential voting since 1900 [5] gives us a clue about Americans and the rabid left and persons from the North East, but no Democrat born after 1960 seems to recall any of this.
But, what options does the New York Times have other than to puddle and piddle as their party leaders dig themselves into another sticky quagmire. The NYT urged most of their puppets to invest in a bad economy and a lost War on Terrorism that they could blame on President Bush and they might lose both of these, ingloriously. Any one loss from the pair will probably lose for them the Presidency once again. A double loss means they were just nasty, self-glorified obstructionists groping for reasons to defile America and grunt and grab for votes for the sake of power.
We must again thank the New York Times for their Herculean incompetence.
rycK ryckki@gmail.com