Here is my prediction for Super Tuesday. I think Clinton will win comfortably (at least 4% in total). That is not a scientific analysis, just a hunch based upon my cynicism of the media’s influence on the political process.
It’s hard for me to tell if my biases are distorting the interpretation of reality or if the media has a bias that is distorting (or shaping) reality or a combination of both. It appears to me that the media is shaping Obama’s momentum via their power of suggestion. It’s the same way that the media chocked of Edwards early on in the process by declaring who the front runners were, Hilary and Obama.
Hilary won the last primary, which was Florida. She won by a wide margin. The Florida election did not count officially in terms of delegates being awarded, however, millions of Democrats voted notwithstanding. In terms of the momentum of people’s choice, after South Carolina the momentum was back in Hilary’s court, but the Media did not report it that way. It appears to me that media exuberance for Obama and the ratings his strong candidacy have produced for networks works to the benefit of Obama’s numbers.
The New Hampshire poll showed Obama leading by 8% over Clinton, prior to their primaries. Clinton ended up winning by about 3%, and that was dismissed by the media as a result of her near tears in an interview. I don’t know how true that is and have no way of knowing. However, empirical evidence has demonstrated that whites tend to say that they will vote for a black candidate, more so than they actually will do at election time. If nothing else, the New Hampshire poll results and the actual Election Day results demonstrate the fallibility of polling.
Even more troubling is the number of polls being taken and how they reflect wide variance of results. Most recently, there were 4 California polls taken, two showing Obama ahead and two showing Clinton ahead, by wide variations. It seems to me that pollsters that once were not given much attention or credulity are now being brought to the forefront, by the media, if they suggest favorably for Obama. The media has a vested interest in making this out to be a neck-to-neck horse race because they are salivating at the rating and revenues it generates. Furthermore, it appears that many media personalities really don’t like Clinton. In the debates no one asked a question about the overall economy, despite that being the number one issue in the minds of voters. Was that due to the fact that the economy was so strong under Bill CLinton and they did not want Hilary to benefit from that fact?
I know that I am on record as saying that I don’t like or care for Hilary, due to the way she answered a question that was of particular interest to me, however, the Media constantly harps on her being a polarizing figure. I don’t think that such statements are fair to her, as simply observing this election; I have seen nothing more polarizing about her than Obama or Edwards. Anyone who takes strong stances and position are seen as polarizing. If person does not have strong stances and position then they will not be seen as polarizing, but such a person is not likely to be the type of person who will stand for what is right when right needs a strong advocate.
I have grown so disenchanted with the American Political process that I try to divorce myself from it in rebellion. That is why I have not voted in years. The process is simply not fair. The media has too much influence. Money has too much influence. The staggered primary dates are just totally outgrown its usefulness.
Monday, February 4, 2008
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
What did Clinton say that wa so bad?
What has Bill Clinton said that is not true, in regards to South Carolina and Obama’s victory? When did black folks start having a problem with truth as our history in this nation has never required skirting or embellishing truth in regards to race, to have the moral high ground. So now why is a racial truth so controversial with many black folks? Like always, truth is controversial when people don’t want to accept it! It is what it is. There is a competition going on for the Democratic nomination and Bill Clinton exercised a truth in this competition. Racial truths are not playing the race card; they are simply observations of reality.
I only have a problem with truth when it is not the whole truth. For example, I have a problem with people who vacuously point to truths about present problems in the black community, without noting the historical actions that begat those reactions. Such superficial truths are racist in that that make the cause of the problems seem born from “blackness” or genetics, rather than a history of mistreatment. The present is the summation or derivative of the temporal continuum of action and reactions. So when people leave out the historical actions that beget present day reactions, they are being disingenuous, ignorant and or racist.
Bill Clinton did not do anything of the sort. When Clinton made the statement about Jesse Jackson, it was in the context of what he had stated earlier about how he understood the excitement that blacks have, due to history, of electing a qualified black candidate. That truth was evidenced in 80 and 84 when Jackson won the State off the black vote. It well known that blacks make up over half of SC Democratic electorate. In other words, Clinton pointed out the truth of why Obama won so convincingly in SC, which is the demonstrated fact that blacks in SC tend to overwhelmingly side with a qualified and inspirational black candidate….as exemplified by Jesse Jackson and not withstanding Al Sharpton (not as qualified).
Bill Clinton wanted to minimize the victory in SC where as proponents of Obama wanted to maximize it, for the sake of momentum. That is the nature of competition folks. I mean…..winning SC was like an NFL team beating the Detroit Lions and thinking the victory demonstrates that they are ready for the Super Bowl. South Carolina is hardly a Microcosm of America and it does not have a good track record in nominating the Democrat nominee. Bill Clinton was not wrong or racist in pointing that out. It was and is simply the truth. Proponents of Obama, on the other hand, are attempting to discredit the messenger in order to discredit the truth. That is not right. That is a common tactic that has been used against our leaders and now some black supporters of Obama are employing the same practice.
If Bill Clinton pointed out the history of racism in America and that black poverty rate in America is 3 times the rate of whites, related to the racial history in America, putting our poverty in proper perspective, blacks would have applauded. Why? The reason is that it is a truth that we see as beneficial to our interest. However, Clinton pointing out a racial truth (why Obama won so large in SC), causes some blacks to cry foul and suggesting that Clinton has stooped down low, playing the race card. Nope, Clinton played the truth card. No one called him a liar and that is because he did not prevaricate. They just don’t like what he said.
As I pointed out in another essay, the group that appears racist in this election is blacks. Iowa and New Hampshire voted before blacks really got to demonstrate their leanings. Actions create equal and opposite reactions, especially in regards to race in America. Now that blacks are demonstrating that they are not voting for white candidates that will not be ignored by many whites, rightly or wrongly. As it becomes more obvious that blacks are supporting the black candidate, expect it to trigger and equal and opposite reaction that eventually will erode the support of white undecided voters. If they were inclined to be non racial in their choice, the appearance of blacks being racial will work against Obama. Whites don’t tend to respect histories influence on the present and hence they don’t see black support for Obama in a historical context. Rather, they just see it as racist, for if they dared supported white candidates, over black candidates, like blacks support the black candidate over white candidates, they would be seen as racist.
I am a system analysis by profession and not a political analyst. My first allegiance is to truth and righteousness. Truth trumps race for me. As a system analyst, when something goes foul programmatically, the first suspect is “Change”. During the tenure of the next president, it is highly probable that we will enter a depression like economic era. The US economy really needs to contract at least 20% to correct itself, by getting rid of the national debt, personal debt and have an economy where consumption is income driven and not debt driven. The government and Fed are resisting this correction which will likely lead to a crash in the next few years. Who is going to get the blame? People are going to look for what “changed” and I hope that change is not the nation’s first black president.
Actions…..reactions. The rule of nature that will not be circumvented.
I only have a problem with truth when it is not the whole truth. For example, I have a problem with people who vacuously point to truths about present problems in the black community, without noting the historical actions that begat those reactions. Such superficial truths are racist in that that make the cause of the problems seem born from “blackness” or genetics, rather than a history of mistreatment. The present is the summation or derivative of the temporal continuum of action and reactions. So when people leave out the historical actions that beget present day reactions, they are being disingenuous, ignorant and or racist.
Bill Clinton did not do anything of the sort. When Clinton made the statement about Jesse Jackson, it was in the context of what he had stated earlier about how he understood the excitement that blacks have, due to history, of electing a qualified black candidate. That truth was evidenced in 80 and 84 when Jackson won the State off the black vote. It well known that blacks make up over half of SC Democratic electorate. In other words, Clinton pointed out the truth of why Obama won so convincingly in SC, which is the demonstrated fact that blacks in SC tend to overwhelmingly side with a qualified and inspirational black candidate….as exemplified by Jesse Jackson and not withstanding Al Sharpton (not as qualified).
Bill Clinton wanted to minimize the victory in SC where as proponents of Obama wanted to maximize it, for the sake of momentum. That is the nature of competition folks. I mean…..winning SC was like an NFL team beating the Detroit Lions and thinking the victory demonstrates that they are ready for the Super Bowl. South Carolina is hardly a Microcosm of America and it does not have a good track record in nominating the Democrat nominee. Bill Clinton was not wrong or racist in pointing that out. It was and is simply the truth. Proponents of Obama, on the other hand, are attempting to discredit the messenger in order to discredit the truth. That is not right. That is a common tactic that has been used against our leaders and now some black supporters of Obama are employing the same practice.
If Bill Clinton pointed out the history of racism in America and that black poverty rate in America is 3 times the rate of whites, related to the racial history in America, putting our poverty in proper perspective, blacks would have applauded. Why? The reason is that it is a truth that we see as beneficial to our interest. However, Clinton pointing out a racial truth (why Obama won so large in SC), causes some blacks to cry foul and suggesting that Clinton has stooped down low, playing the race card. Nope, Clinton played the truth card. No one called him a liar and that is because he did not prevaricate. They just don’t like what he said.
As I pointed out in another essay, the group that appears racist in this election is blacks. Iowa and New Hampshire voted before blacks really got to demonstrate their leanings. Actions create equal and opposite reactions, especially in regards to race in America. Now that blacks are demonstrating that they are not voting for white candidates that will not be ignored by many whites, rightly or wrongly. As it becomes more obvious that blacks are supporting the black candidate, expect it to trigger and equal and opposite reaction that eventually will erode the support of white undecided voters. If they were inclined to be non racial in their choice, the appearance of blacks being racial will work against Obama. Whites don’t tend to respect histories influence on the present and hence they don’t see black support for Obama in a historical context. Rather, they just see it as racist, for if they dared supported white candidates, over black candidates, like blacks support the black candidate over white candidates, they would be seen as racist.
I am a system analysis by profession and not a political analyst. My first allegiance is to truth and righteousness. Truth trumps race for me. As a system analyst, when something goes foul programmatically, the first suspect is “Change”. During the tenure of the next president, it is highly probable that we will enter a depression like economic era. The US economy really needs to contract at least 20% to correct itself, by getting rid of the national debt, personal debt and have an economy where consumption is income driven and not debt driven. The government and Fed are resisting this correction which will likely lead to a crash in the next few years. Who is going to get the blame? People are going to look for what “changed” and I hope that change is not the nation’s first black president.
Actions…..reactions. The rule of nature that will not be circumvented.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Actions begetting Reactions: The rule of Nature
What is the potential, if not probable, backlash from black folks dumping the Clintons for a black candidate? Hillary is not Bill, but blacks have had a relationship with the Clintons longer than they have had a relationship with Obama, from the perspective of the Clintons. Thus, to the Clintons, as well as others, it may appear that blacks are selling out the white Clintons for one of their own. Every action has a reaction, however, often equal and opposite, and that could spell a problem for black interest in this nation going forward, if Hillary wins.
If blacks will not stand behind people who think, rightly or wrongly, that they have stood behind us, there will be a consequence. I think if Hillary gets elected and goes on to win the presidency, she will have less of an open ear to groups like the Congressional Black Caucus, Civil Rights leaders and black and their special interest in general. I mean why should she stand by us when we did not stand by her, a Clinton? I am not saying that this sort of thinking is right or wrong, but it is definitely in the scope of human nature and she is human. As the old saying goes; "Hell have no fury like a women scorned". So as blacks now are seeing the Clintons differently, the Clintons are now seeing blacks differently as well.
I think that by blacks overwhelmingly siding with Obama it will have a negative impact on the Obama candidacy overall, even if his primary competition was Edwards and not Clinton. The overwhelming support by blacks, for Obama, makes it appear as if blacks are going to support the black candidate, which may lead some whites to feel that they are justified in supporting the white candidate, if all other things seem equal. Moreover, it will make women feel that they should rally to support the women candidate. Why should blacks care what white folks think? Simple...they have much more power than we do in this process of America.
So here is the problem with that for Obama. It’s called mathematics. There are far more whites and far more women in America than there are blacks and the “vote for who looks like me” methodology will hurt Obama, because there are not enough people in America who look like Obama to win at that game. So as Black support for Obama nears 100%, it will produce an equal and opposite reaction among white voters.
If black people were split more evenly between Obama and another candidate, it would go a long ways to reduce the racial, look like me, overtones and resentment that is taking place in the Democratic primaries now. The Republicans have to be sitting back and enjoying the Democratic Party as it suffers from its diversity of interest cannibalizing each other before they do battle with Republicans. War between Grass Hoppers delights the Crows.
I think the entity that will benefit most from what is happening is the Republican Party and the group, in the end, who will be hurt the most, is African Americans. Of course, the greater the risk, the greater the potential reward. So I can certainly understand why blacks are willing to take the risk for the perceived benefit of having the first black President. However, personally, I think the risk at this point in time is much greater than the reward would be. We are betting that America has REALLY changed and if it has not....we will pay the price.
You cannot fault the slaves who are bold enough to run away for freedom. However, the slave has to do it when the odds are more in favor of success, as opposed to being caught and brought back and whipped for trying to escape. I do not particularly care for Hilary Clinton. In truth, I don't like her. Of the three standing I would make a strategic vote for Edwards, but he is no longer viable, so it would be Clinton. I am just saying that we need to be careful in our strategy to seek freedom. It needs to be based more on a plan and strategy as opposed to impulse and emotions.
If blacks will not stand behind people who think, rightly or wrongly, that they have stood behind us, there will be a consequence. I think if Hillary gets elected and goes on to win the presidency, she will have less of an open ear to groups like the Congressional Black Caucus, Civil Rights leaders and black and their special interest in general. I mean why should she stand by us when we did not stand by her, a Clinton? I am not saying that this sort of thinking is right or wrong, but it is definitely in the scope of human nature and she is human. As the old saying goes; "Hell have no fury like a women scorned". So as blacks now are seeing the Clintons differently, the Clintons are now seeing blacks differently as well.
I think that by blacks overwhelmingly siding with Obama it will have a negative impact on the Obama candidacy overall, even if his primary competition was Edwards and not Clinton. The overwhelming support by blacks, for Obama, makes it appear as if blacks are going to support the black candidate, which may lead some whites to feel that they are justified in supporting the white candidate, if all other things seem equal. Moreover, it will make women feel that they should rally to support the women candidate. Why should blacks care what white folks think? Simple...they have much more power than we do in this process of America.
So here is the problem with that for Obama. It’s called mathematics. There are far more whites and far more women in America than there are blacks and the “vote for who looks like me” methodology will hurt Obama, because there are not enough people in America who look like Obama to win at that game. So as Black support for Obama nears 100%, it will produce an equal and opposite reaction among white voters.
If black people were split more evenly between Obama and another candidate, it would go a long ways to reduce the racial, look like me, overtones and resentment that is taking place in the Democratic primaries now. The Republicans have to be sitting back and enjoying the Democratic Party as it suffers from its diversity of interest cannibalizing each other before they do battle with Republicans. War between Grass Hoppers delights the Crows.
I think the entity that will benefit most from what is happening is the Republican Party and the group, in the end, who will be hurt the most, is African Americans. Of course, the greater the risk, the greater the potential reward. So I can certainly understand why blacks are willing to take the risk for the perceived benefit of having the first black President. However, personally, I think the risk at this point in time is much greater than the reward would be. We are betting that America has REALLY changed and if it has not....we will pay the price.
You cannot fault the slaves who are bold enough to run away for freedom. However, the slave has to do it when the odds are more in favor of success, as opposed to being caught and brought back and whipped for trying to escape. I do not particularly care for Hilary Clinton. In truth, I don't like her. Of the three standing I would make a strategic vote for Edwards, but he is no longer viable, so it would be Clinton. I am just saying that we need to be careful in our strategy to seek freedom. It needs to be based more on a plan and strategy as opposed to impulse and emotions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
