Are We Witnessing Another American Political Miracle?

In all the noise of the ongoing political campaign, we can forget to remind ourselves of the wonder and mystery of our political system. It is a unique system, and a somewhat -- no, no, strike that "somewhat" -- VERY brutal system. Most notably in recent years it gives few second chances and only to those willing to suffer great pain and public humiliation, e.g., Richard Nixon. It is a system that demands constant renewal. New blood!

The other feature of our system is that this messy, horrid, brutal, prolonged, etc, process usually produces some very interesting candidates, and, more often than not, some very good Presidents. As a group, our Presidents stand well above the leaders of any other country for the same 225 years or so. Not many if any other countries have produced leaders the stature of Washington, Jefferson, the two Adams, Lincoln, Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge (yes, Coolidge -- a remarkable man), Truman, Eisenhower, and Reagan. Even the much-maligned dad and son Bush presidencies helped transform the world and bring freedom and prosperity to millions of people. Some of our more mediocre Presidents, e.g., JFK, LBJ, Clinton, Nixon, and Ford, also led fairly successfully at times of great challenges to America and to the status quo. Jimmy Carter? Yeah, uh, OK, he was a major dud -- no system is perfect -- but even he got Israelis and Egyptians to sign a peace deal that still holds. Our system has a pretty good record; I will stand it up against any other country's.

I digress. Let's get back to the present. We are quite possibly seeing that system produce yet another political wonder if not outright miracle.

Drum roll, please . . .

The Democrats will nominate the one major candidate, Obama, who cannot win the White House for the Democrats, in this "The Year of the Democrats," and the Republicans will nominate the one major candidate, McCain, in this "The Year of the Democrats," who can win the White House for the Republicans. Amazing how it works.

About Those "Highly Educated" Voters

Have a few minutes to spare? Go to "Google," type in the phrase "highly educated voters," hit "Search News." Go ahead. We'll wait . . . OK, what do you get? All sorts of stories about Obama voters, and how he attracts the "highly educated." You will get the same from the pundits on network and cable news: lots of blather about how Obama appeals to "highly educated" Americans.

That, of course, is just more MSM "spin doctor" nonsense and we conservatives let them get away with it. We heard the same song when John "Xmas in Cambodia" Kerry ran for President, to wit, the "highly educated" went for Kerry the ignorant ones went for Bush. Every time you hear that phrase, "highly educated" substitute the phrase "attended a lame liberal college or university." That's what we are really talking about. Given the state of higher education in the world, including in our own beloved Republic, spending four years in a typical "liberal arts" institution generally qualifies you for . . . uh . . . well, not much, except, of course, to boast that you are "highly educated." And that just don't mean a whole hill of beans today. Let me explain.

A few years ago, more than I care to mention, I headed a large office at the State Department. I got tasked with hiring a couple of Presidential Management Interns (PMIs). These PMIs come from the elite of the elite student body at the elite of the elite universities. They get hired on a temporary basis and then, usually, get offered prestigious jobs in the government. I was told, in no uncertain terms, that whatever else I did, I had to hire women. So I began to pore over the resumes. My heart sank. I felt inadequate and so, so inferior to these kids. Their resumes, impeccably printed and organized, using dozens of words ending in "-ization," and listing prowess with a dazzling array of complex software programs, described accomplishments beyond my wildest dreams -- especially for when I was the applicants' age!

I thought I should resign and give up my job to one of the "brilliant" child wonders. Ah, naive me. I obviously had spent too much time overseas. I saw resumes as truthful documents actually written by the applicants, applicants, in this case, full of accomplishments and possessed of massive brains throbbing with energy and ideas. As I, however, kept reading, even slow-witted me began to notice oddities. They all began to look the same: the font, the format, the wording, the list of classes and even -- horrors! -- the "accomplishments." I noted this in passing to a cynical old friend (now, alas, departed) who worked in "human resources" (what a great phrase that). He laughed, "You dope! They get classes on how to write resumes! They have professors and computer programs that put these things together for them." (Remember, folks, computers were new things back then.) He said, "Just randomly pick a couple of women students, they're all the same, hire'em, and move on."

I could not do that. I stole a friend's idea and devised "The World War II Test." I invited the applicants for interviews. These PMI wannabes came off as slick and somewhat rude. I noted something among my subjects, a sense of entitlement, they all, to varying degrees, emitted a message along the lines of "Why are you bothering me with this silly interview? I am obviously brilliant. I have a degree from Columbia. I am not going to spend my whole life as you have in this stupid bureaucracy. I just need this to add to my resume. I am in a hurry." I hit them with the test, which consisted of about dozen questions about WWII and its aftermath. I recall a few,

Can you tell me how US troops got into Europe in the first place? When was WWII? (I would accept a variety of answers as long as the applicant could defend the dates as the true start and end of WWII.) What nations comprised the principal Allied and Axis powers? Who was Neville Chamberlain? What he did he do at Munich and with whom? Who was Mussolini? What did he do to Ethiopia? Who was Stalin? Who was Hirohito? What was D-Day? What President ordered the dropping of the atomic bombs and why? Can you name a result of the Conference at Yalta? What was the Berlin Airlift?

Of the 14 or 15 applicants I interviewed, only one got them all right -- the only male in the crowd, by the way. None, zero, zip of the rest got even ONE right. Not a single one. A very irritated applicant asked me, "Do we really need to know this old stuff?" I noted that we worked with NATO and Europe, hence, it was important to know the background that led to the creation of NATO and the then just-concluded Cold War. She stared at me and said, "What does World War II have to do with NATO, the Cold War and Europe?" I promptly offered the job to the male -- oh, the cries from "Human Resources" -- who turned it down for a more lucrative one in the private sector. In the best Foreign Service tradition, I stalled hiring anybody else, let my two-year assignment run out, and left my poor successor to get stuck with one of the clueless ones.

Back to our story. I wonder how many of the "highly educated voters" could pass that WWII test? Or the Vietnam War Test? Or the Cold War test? Or know much about American history? Or understand the economy? And worst of all, the odds are they can't fire a gun, either.

Moral of the story: do not accept the mantra that Obama voters are "highly educated." They just went to "institutions of higher learning," you know, like the one where the Weatherman terrorist, Bill Ayers, teaches.

The Diplomad Gloats: We Were Wright about Obama

Looks like we called it right when we noted that Obama's Philadelphia speech had been the wrong one. We laughed at those critics who swooned over Obama and his "meaningful" exposition on race and his principled refusal to "throw his friend Rev. Wright under the bus."

Well, guess what? We just heard the crunching of bones as Obama's bus ran right over the good Reverend. Obama the Saint; Obama the Messiah; Obama the Good and Wonderful . . . ha! It turns out he is just another politician and not a very good one at that. He is a bumbling fool. He should learn from the Clintons -- those people know how to throw friends under a bus!

Obama couldn't disown Wright, he claimed. He argued that Wright's statements had been taken "out of context" and looped into "endless 30-second sound bites." He defended Wright and lacerated America on race. Well, no more. Now after Wright's buffoonery in front of the National Press Club, where he restated his belief that the USG has invented AIDS to kill minorities and made racist impressions of white people, among other idiocies, now, Obama the Mute, Obama the Blind, Obama the Comatose has finally found his voice, his eyesight, and his brain. He can "no longer" tolerate Wright's statements! He is NOW offended! He now realizes that Wright is a ranter! He suddenly now has come to the conclusion that Wright is not "the same man" (gag!) he met 20 years ago! Oh, please, kind sir, just go away . . .Could Obama be a bigger fraud than Kerry? Hard to believe, but he just might be.


A prayer for the GOP:

Oh, God, we thank you for leading the Democrats to find these candidates, and for allowing them to do the apparently impossible. They are about to lose the 2008 election. We are a blessed country. We thank you, Lord, and ask that you keep supplying the Democrats with candidates the quality of McGovern, Carter, Dukakis, Ted Kennedy, Edwards, Gore, Kerry, and now Obama . . . Amen.

War in the American Left

The coming US election and the ongoing battle between Hillary "I misspoke" Clinton and Barack "I heard nothing and have no middle name" Obama on the Dem side versus John "I am really, really a conservative" McCain on the GOP side is, as the MSM never tires of reminding us, full of firsts. Sing along if you wish: First woman with a "realistic chance" of getting elected President; first African-American with a "realistic chance" of getting elected President; first former POW to have a realistic chance (note: no quotation marks; he likely will win) of getting elected president; first time since 1960 we will elect as President a senator straight out of the senate; first time since 1952 that no incumbent President or Vice-President is running for the office. I am sure there are many other firsts I can't remember as I struggle to drink my coffee without spilling it on my laptop.

Some commentators also have seen this election and the presence of Senator Obama as a "chance to discuss race openly." That is, of course, rubbish. We have done almost nothing but discuss race since the founding of the country. We fought a massive civil war as atonement for the great original sin of slavery with which our Republic was born, had a subsequent century-long and very successful civil rights struggle, and, oh yes, of course, the very last person who wants to talk about race is Obama who knows he would get "Wright-sized" in that discussion. A topic for another post, but the issue in America is no longer race or prejudice. The top income earners in the US, BTW, are not Typical White People (TWP). Asian-Americans take the top rung. As the great Thomas Sowell pointed out many years ago, black Caribbean immigrants do remarkably well in terms of education and economic achievement and, as a group, surpass TWPs. So it seems that being a non-TWP is not a hindrance to making it in America. The issue, I would argue, is culture, not race. Race tells you very little about a person or group other than perhaps a few irrelevant physical features. Culture is much more important. We can discuss that some other time.

More interesting than all these firsts, we have for the first time since perhaps 1968 or 1972 open warfare within the Democratic party between the left, represented by the Clintons, and the far left, represented by Obama and Dean. The far left has seen the Obama candidacy as their opportunity to take back the party from the Clintons and their "namby-pamby" leftism. A civil war has erupted between these two strands of leftism, much in the way that the GOP once saw between the Goldwater and Rockefeller strands of conservatism. Very telling is that the MSM clearly has sided with the hard left and now misses no opportunity to trash the Clintons, their former protectees. For years, the Clintons could count on the MSM to cover up, explain away, or minimize their lies and crimes. For years, the Clintons could tell the far left of their party, "you have no choice but us." Unfortunately for the Clintons, the very lefty loons (VLL) and their MSM allies now have somebody else with which to pursue their project of bringing down America.

We will soon see Hillary wearing an American flag pin working as a contributor to Fox News.

Serbians Everywhere!

Can't blog, uh, today, whew, that was close . . . running with my head down to my car Go! Go! Must get to my base . . . . incoming sniper fire . . . . no welcoming ceremony . . . Sinbad's hit! Help! God bless Sheryl Crow, man she wields a mean M-4 . . . got to run . . . Chelsea! Look out!

Clinton Wants McCain to Win (I guess)

Sitting in the Diplomad retirement home, but being a "Typical White Person" (TWP) I can't resist blogging . . .

Is the Democratic Party weird or what? What has happened to the world's oldest political party? This party once produced Wilson, FDR, HST, Adlai Stevenson, JFK, LBJ, 'Scoop' Jackson, and many other notable statesmen and politicians, with whom one could agree or disagree but had to recognize as serious pro-America politicos. It has degenerated over the past 35 years or so to McGovern, Carter, Clinton(s), Gore, Spitzer, Dodd, Kerry, Edwards, and Obama/Wright. This is hardly a serious political organization for the world's most important country. And the level of discussion? Wha' happened there? "Bush lied, kids died!" "U.S. Out of Iraq!" "Tax the rich!" "Tax Oil!" "Change!" "Ready from Day One!" "Kill NAFTA!" That's it? That's how we beat the terrorists by pretending they don't exist? By retreating? "Fix" a recession by increasing taxes? By raising the price of fuel? By destroying one of the most successful trade agreements ever reached? "Ready from Day One" to do what? Do they know that we are doing quite well internationally? That despite the lefty media reporting, the USA is the predominant country in the world? That we are winning against the terrorists?

In fairness, I haven't been too impressed by some of the GOPers lately (what the heck is Ron Paul but a recycled, lightly airbrushed Lyndon LaRouche? Let's not even talk about Larry Craig) but compared to the Dems, the GOP is full of Platos, Aristotles, Lincolns, and Teddy Roosevelts. Senator McCain was not my first choice for President, nor even my second, but he's a serious individual with a record of service and sacrifice. He has put his life on the line for his country and seems willing to acknowledge and correct mistakes, e.g., on taxes and immigration, and soon I hope, on the global warming hoax. I also see politics as the art of what's possible. McCain is the most conservative candidate whom we now, today, in 2008, can elect President. Let's do that. Sorry, Ann Coulter, I do not want Hillary to win just to prove a point. I tearfully part company with you on this. The world is too dangerous for those sorts of games. I don't want these Dems, none of them, answering that 3 AM phone call.

Now, back to those Dems and their games. Contrary to what most of us thought, it appears that Obama is headed for the Democratic Party nomination. While "stuff" could still happen, such as a stunning set of primary victories for Clinton that convinces the mysterious and "MIGHTY SUPERDELEGATES" to back away from Obama and go for Clinton -- or some third person (e.g., Gore, Edwards, Rev. Wright, or George Clooney) -- Obama seems the man to beat in November. Hillary Clinton knows this. She stays in the fight either for reasons of her huge ego, or perhaps a calculation that Obama (or some other non-Hillary nominee) will come out of the process so damaged, that McCain will win big (the reverse Ann Coulter ploy) and, thus, leave Hillary open to run in 2012, by which time America "SURELY" will have tired of the GOP.

Now, back to my soft food . . .

The Wrong Speech

Read and listened to the Obama speech. Can't take it seriously and am shocked by the tepid criticism it has received. Few if any critics got it right; they missed the point. They were like the bull who charges the red cape instead of the matador.

Simply put, it was the wrong speech.

We didn't want an exposition on race and black anger in America from the son of an immigrant who never experienced the civil rights movement or segregation or Jim Crow. Who cares about the "context" of Rev. Wright's anti-white, anti-American and anti-semitic rants? We have heard this defense before of murderers and child molestors, to wit, they had a bad childhood. Hogwash.

We wanted to know about Obama's relationship with Wright. We wanted to know why Obama thought it useful, cool, meaningful, whatever, to turn Wright into his mentor and spiritual guide. He spent 20 years with the man and didn't know his views? Or, he spent 20 years with the man and didn't mind his views? Or, he spent 20 years with the man, knew his views, did or didn't agree with them, but found it politically expedient to maintain the relationship? Which is it, Senator? No choice reflects well on your qualifications to be President.

The Democrats are heading for another defeat in November.