Category Archives: bill clinton

>INSIGHT: Obama’s Cabinet — God help America!!

>A number of people have suggested that Barack Obama can assuage some of the concerns about his incompetency to be President by revealing the names of his Cabinet. (Ooops! I think I was supposed to say “inexperience.” Same thing, just sounds better.)

Since it appears he is not going to take that advice, I thought I would help him out and leak some the names of his likely Cabinet members. Keep in mind, Obama comes from the Chicago School of politics, which means he will look to his closest friends and family to dole out the spoils of victory. This will not be easy for poor old Obama since there are only of few Cabinet positions, and he has a lot of cronies to reward. Also, some folks are multi-talented and could be logical picks for more than one post. But let’s give it a go.

First, there is Obama’s pal, William Ayers. He could serve in a number of positions. Of course, he could be a good choice for Attorney General. Having avoided the criminal justice system on murder charges due to some technicality, he can well appreciate the plight of criminals. I am sure he would do a lot to alleviate jail overcrowding – especially by pot heads and terrorists. In fact, he would make the entire Gitmo problem go away immediately by releasing all the inmates to go back to the Middle East, where these can resume their careers.

Then I am thinking … Ayres has spent more recent years introducing left wing, anti capitalism indoctrination into the curriculum of our public schools by teaching teachers to be radical activists in the classroom. He is currently terrorist-in-residence at the University of Chicago. This could land him as Secretary of Education.

Of course, as a former terrorist, who makes no apologies for his deadly rampaging in the 1960s, he is a natural for the head of Homeland Security. This is sort of a fight fire with fire appointment. Who can know the mind of a terrorist better than … a terrorist? So, Home Security it is.

We should not discount Ayers’ wife and fellow radical, who did do time for killing a few people. Of course, she claims that any bomb she does not personally detonate doesn’t count. Not sure how the dead feel about that. At any rate, Bernadette Dorn, is not only out of prison, but is a respected professor of law at Northwestern University. This could give her a shot at any of the three offices I mention for her hubby. Think about it. If he gets Home Security and she gets to be Attorney General, they could be Obama’s most prolific agents of change – with more impact than all the bombs they blew off in their days of rage. So, seems like AG is the spot for her.

Moving on … (no pun intended) … there is George Soros, the Hungarian gazillionaire who is spending a chunk of his fortune on left wing proselytizing through such groups as moveon.org and what I like to call (hot) Air America, the radio voice of socialism — not to mention the money he pours into independent campaign expenditures trying to get Obama in the Oval Office. Usually these types of money bags wind up as Secretary of the Treasury or Secretary of Commerce. But, I think he would be the perfect guy to head the Federal Reserve Bank, where he can continue their trend toward a controlled economy. On the other hand, he may demand the Treasury job where he can get control of all the mortgage bailout money being donated by Congress on behalf of the taxpayers. (I know this is not one of the official Cabinet positions, but if Obama tried to exclude him from Cabinet meetings, he would just stomp off and buy the Congress — in which he already has a fifty percent stake.)

In attempting to resolve conflicting ambitions, Obama would likely give the Secretary of the Treasury job to Alex Giannoulias. He is currently the very young Illinois State Treasurer. See, he’s already a treasurer. Also, he has had a lot of experience helping his daddy run a bank that provided much needed money for down and out mobsters and high clout customers. If this is not enough to qualify him to head the Department of the Treasury, bear in mind he and Obama are long time pick-up basketball buddies.

For Secretary of Commerce, I see the frontrunner to be Jim Johnson, the former head of Fannie Mae. He is an Obama confidante, and even headed the search committee that brought Joe Biden the vice presidential nomination. Since housing and credit are the central issues in the business world today, who can be better suited to the job than the guy who saw the crumbling of the American economy from the inside. Even though Fannie Mae had to be bailed out as part of the biggest taxpayer financial rescue in American history, I am sure Johnson did a good job. Why else would they give him a $20 million severance package when he resigned?

For some reason the word “godfather” just popped into my head … and that reminded me of outgoing Illlinois State Senate President Emil Jones, who is widely recognized as Obama’s political godfather — and a guy how never saw a reform he liked. (Godfather? Hmmmmm. Now that I think about it. Put Jones in a tux and he does conjure up the image of a black Marlon Brando – even the gravelly voice. But, I digress.) If Obama can talk Jones out of spending his retirement years as the Ambassador to Jamaica or Aruba, he could be the odds-on favorite for one of the welfare posts – Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Health and Human Services (HHS) and Agriculture (think food stamps). My inside information has it as HUD, because he has a lot of friends, like Tony Rezko, who know how to do the public housing real estate deals. Hmmmm. But they are also good at hospital licensing. NO. (Oh! Scratch Rezko. He’s going to jail. But there is no end of other influence peddlers Jones can look to for project management.)

Jones could be pushed aside if Franklin Raines, formerly of Fannie Mae, wants the job. He knows housing. Not only did he get paid more than $90 million dollars while presiding over the collapse of the housing market, but he knows how to negotiate a good loan. He was able to obtain millions of dollars in personal loans in what are being called “sweetheart deals.” If Obama wants experience to go with loyalty, this is the guy – and he’s a brother. While he is under federal investigation, I think Obama can put him in the ceremonial job of Treasurer of the United States. Having skimmed almost $100 million from the taxpayers, he SHOULD have his name on the money. He thinks it is all his anyway. (Again, not an official Cabinet position, but who would tell a guy with such audacity to get out of the meeting?)

I think Veteran Affairs is a slam dunk for Massachusetts Senator John Kerry. He has an ability to understand, and take, both sides of an issue. He boasts of his active duty combat experience in Vietnam (okay, some dubious claims), but he returned to America and gained attention for ratting out his follow soldiers for a massacring innocent civilians. I know his stories turned out to be bit … shall we say … counter accurate, but any one can make a mistake. (You will recall Hillary once mistook a bouquet of flowers from a 12-year-old girl as bullets from a band of terrorist.) More recently, Kerry has become an outspoken critic of the war in Iraq, which he voted to start and supported the funding. Given Obama’s get-out-at-any-cost policy, Kerry is a natural to handle the return of the troops.

While so-called organized labor (unions) controls only about 8 percent of the work force (and declining), they do control the Democrat party and the Obama-Biden team. This means a small group of union heads will name the next Secretary of Labor – saving Obama the problem if vetting anyone he might otherwise wish to choose. Given the labor leaders’ presumption of the right to name the secretary in Democrat administrations, we should call it the Department of Organized Labor. Well, I see this going to Jimmy Hoffa – the one that has not gone missing. He’s broke with his GOP friends to support Obama, and as head of the Teamsters, he has a lot of members Obama should want to keep happy. Nothing worse than an angry trucker.

Health and Human Services maybe the most humanitarian Cabinet post. I say it goes to Oprah Winfrey. The issues handled by HHS reads like a schedule of her upcoming shows. Of course, she maybe not want to take the downgrade from her show. I mean, what Secretary of HHS is remotely as popular as her – and as well paid? If she declines, I put my money on Dr. Phil or Dr. Oz.

Another easy call is Secretary of Energy. This is one confirmation away for Al Gore. From this position, he can reduce American man-made carbon emissions to levels not seen since the Jurrasic Era (because mankind was not around. Duh!). He will reduce our bio fuel dependency by developing such innovative resources as flatulence fuel. His Oscar and Nobel prizes will look great on his credenza, although not so easy to see in his dimly lite office. He will become the national spokesperson for the new “dim bulb” policy.

Then there is the Department of the Interior. Since no one has any idea what this agency does, and since every Cabinet needs to be bipartisan, this is where Obama buries the sole Republican. Who would that be? Who cares?

For the Department of Transportation I think Obama picks Chicago’s former transportation guy, Frank Kruesi. He is a pal of Mayor Rich Daley and Obama has a lot of quid pro quo for machine support. I mean, what good is bringing the White House under the wing of the Chicago Democrat machine if you cannot take care of your friends in the spirit of good old fashion Chicago cronyism.

Finally, there is the most prestigious position of all, Secretary of State. I see that going to Bill Clinton. He is the perfect choice. Anyone who can finagle those highly profitable deals with the potentates of the Middle East has the negotiating skill to solve any world problem. Some suggested Hillary, but she is not about to be the second or third woman anything. She is still looking for a glass ceiling to break — not rise through a previously shattered portal. This will allow Bill Clinton to move beyond his well known affinity for domestic affairs and into the more exotic world of foreign affairs.

That’s not all folks. Here are a few important miscellaneous appointments.

In England, the national department heads are called “ministers.” Well, Obama his own version in the personages of not-so-reverend Jesse Jackson, Jeremiah Wright, Al Sharpton and Michael Pfleger. The sometimes Reverend Jackson covets the SOS job (among other things), but the simple truth is that Obama doesn’t like him at all. I see Wright as Congressional Chaplain, where he can beseech God to damn America in front of the men and women who are doing a good job of it already. Sharpton as head of the Employment and Equal Opportunity Commission, where he can organize demonstrations agains himself. Pfleger? Hmmmm. Oh. Pfleger becomes U.S. Envoy to the Vatican, where his imitations of black preachers will keep the Pope in stitches. The are both Aryans, you know. Jesse Jackson? I mean, you have to do something with the guy. Maybe ambassador to Zaire to get him out of the country.

Since Obama is sure to fire U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, who is cleaning out the corrupt Chicago machine of a lot of Obama friends and supporters, we should consider the replacement — which will come at the recommendation of Illinois’ strident paritsan hack senator, Dick Durbin. I am thinking the new U.S. Attorney in Chicago will be Mayor Daley’s brother, Michael Daley (no photo available).

Speaking of brothers … Obama needs to help out is own, who is living on one dollar a month in Kenya. With his knowledge of the ravages of poverty, I think Obama’s brother makes him head of the Food Stamp Program.

Correction: I originally had George Soro identified as a Greek. An understandably outraged Greek blog reader corrected my error. Soros is a Hungarian. My apololgies to the Greeks … and the the Hungarians, for that matter.

Advertisements

>OBSERVATION: Team Obama off message?

>First we have Bill Clinton appearing on “The View” and “The David Letterman Show” on the same day. Given two major opportunities to push the Barack Obama candidacy, Good ole Bill hardly mentions the Democrat presidential nominee. I would say Clinton damned Obama by feint praise, but he didn’t even offer up any praise, feint or otherwise.

In responding to a number of questions, Clinton was more impartial than the average left-leaning news anchor. Most of his praise we reserved for his wife, with John McCain coming in second. His omission of any mention of Obama was so obvious that comedian Chris Rock, who followed Clinton on the Letterman set, did an impromptu schtick about reminding the former President who won the nomination this year. Rock mocked Clinton’s seeming inability to utter Obama’s name.

As if that was not enough surprises for Obama, his own pick for Vice President, Joe Biden, did a little dumping of his own. The Delaware senator said the “McCain can’t email” television ad put out by Obama was “awful” and if he had known about it in advance, it never would have aired. I had made my own opinion known in a previous blog, but I never expected to get support from Obama’s running mate. The commercial was offenisve because McCain cannot email because war injuries pervent him from useing a keyboard.

Are these guys a wee bit off message?

>LMAO: Looking at the body of law

>John McCain and Barack Obama are missing some really critical issues. Are they clueless, or is it a bipartisan conspiracy to keep certain issues away from the public debate? One such issue was brought to my attention recently when a judge threw out a rape charge where the victim was a prostitute. According to the judge, the case should have been brought as a theft of service. (I sense you are already starting to grin, but there’s more.)

Seems that the john hired the whore for the usual services – or maybe unusual services, I really don’t know – but regardless, at the end of the performance of service the guy pulled out a gun and demanded that she perform similar services on some of his friends without further compensation. (Where these guys standing around watching?)

Now, I know a lot of feminists have a rather expanded definition of rape (unless committed by liberal Democrat politicians). I have heard, with my own ears, a National Organization of Women activist say that construction workers giving the “wolf whistle” to boob and bum emphasizing women is “tantamount to rape”. Personally, I think her comment is tantamount to man-hating hyperbole.

I am just not politically correct enough to equate the action of our john, as bad as it was, with the guy who drags an innocent co-ed into the bushes and brutally beats and assaults her, or the pervert who lures an 11-year-old into his rusty van to force her to perform oral sex. I sort of like the theft of service angle.

I suppose it is possible to rape a prostitute in the midst of her rendering some service, I’m just not sure how that happens. Let’s say a guy agrees to pay the hooker for the service de jour. She performs, he gets full satisfaction. After the fact, he refuses to pay because he is a jerk. Did he commit rape? Or was it a theft of service? And, can you even steal an illegal service? That is what the judge was grappling with.

Lets look at it another way. Is it possible to grab a prostitute on the street, force her to provide any one of her standard services, and then avoid a rape charge by giving her $100 after the fact?

This also makes me wonder whether a john is obligated to pay if the services were unsatisfactory, or not performed properly. What if, at the climax of the encounter, he did not? When I worked as Sears we had a “satisfaction guaranteed or your money back” policy. Does that apply to the sex trade? I assume you are starting to appreciate the importance of these questions.

Maybe we should ask Eliot Spitzer for his professional opinion on this matter. Not only is the former Governor of New York, and a one-time federal prosecutor, but he was a regular procurer of prostitutes for personal pleasure.

(The way Democrats handle sex scandals, I’m surprised Spitzer was not on Obama’s short list for Vice President. To what am I referring? Think Bill “nothing like a good cigar” Clinton, Ted “the champion of Chappaquiddick” Kennedy, Gerry “thank heaven for little boys” Studds and Barney “pimps on the public payroll” Franks. Despite MAJOR scandals, all these guys continued to receive homage from their Democrat colleagues.)

But, I digress.

So where are McCain and Obama on this issue? I suspect these questions could affect more people than all the house foreclosures and bankruptcies combined. Geez! Sometimes our leaders have no sense of priorities.

>REACT: Obama and the religious Wright

>The sound you hear is the hot air escaping from the Barack Obama’s presidential balloon as it descends to earth.

I hate to be an I-told-you-so, but … Why do we always say that? Actually, I’m grinning from ear to ear. I love being I-told-you-so. Who doesn’t?

So, here it is.

Long before the Obama’s religious mentor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, ignited the ammo dump of racial politics, I predicted that the “racial thing” would sink Obama – if not for the nomination, certainly for the general election. (Check out my blog items on South Carolina Mississippi … and the campaign in general.)

Keep in mind that it was Obama who first pulled the switch that sent his campaign train, the Unifer Express, off the main line and onto the African American Limited sidetrack. The beginning of the end for Obama came when he decided to run as the candidate of black aspirations in South Carolina, were the African American bloc represented about half of the primary voters. Prior to that, Obama was pulling 50 to 70 percent of black voters — not enough to win in future primaries.

To get the needed 80 to 90 percent majorities to carry him over the top in places like South Carolina and Mississippi, and give him a greater share of distributed delegates in places like Texas, he had to offer himself as the black political messiah. It worked. His subsequent victories resulted from overwhelming black turnout and vote.

Bill Clinton was not wrong in comparing Obama’s South Carolina victory to those of Jesse Jackson in 1984 and 1988. It was a demographic inevitability based on racial politics. So long as Obama made it a black crusade, he could command the lead in the Democrat primaries, where black votes enjoy a disproportionate advantage.

In high school science, we learned that “for every action there is an opposite but equal reaction.” This applies to politics, too. As Obama solidified black support for his candidacy, he created a countervailing coalition of wary whites. In invoking ethnic solidarity among his adopted people, he naturally provoked solidarity among his other people. Though half white and half black, Obama chose to be a black candidate for all the obvious reasons. Geraldine Ferrarro was not wrong either.

Obama’s introduction of racial politics showed in the numbers. For the big gain in the black vote, he was suddenly losing 75-plus of the white vote in many key states. His hope of increasing his percentage with the Hispanics also was dashed by his Afrocentric campaign. That may have cost him a clear win in Texas. As time went by, racial polarization became more of a factor. That trend continues.

Though Obama first played the racial card, the Clinton campaign saw their opportunity on the white side of the racial divide. Clinton matched the racial card with the surrogate comments of Bill Clinton, Geraldine Ferrarro and others, but they did not trump it. The advantage was still Obama’s. He was taking a calculated risk, and so far the calculus looked good. His zigzag racial strategy was working, with gains outpacing loses. But then, the joker turned up in the person of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s long-time pastor, close friend and self-proclaimed religions mentor.

At a time when Obama was trying to deflect suspicions of radical Muslimism lurking behind his Harvard-bred image, he was more than eager to brag of his strong ties to the Christian United Trinity Church of Christ and his close relationship with Pastor Wright. For more than 20 years, the Obama family had been among the congregants. Barak and Michelle were married at Trinity by Pastor Wright. The Obama children were baptized there. He attended regularly, and supported the church with is donations. In more recent years, Obama was among the church’s most prominent attendees. Obama titled his book, The Audacity of Hope, after the sermonic themes of Pastor Wright. Though perhaps less appropriate, it was a better title for a presidential campaign than “God Damn America.” He offered up Pastor Wright to the public as part of his campaign network of informal advisors. Obama was the first Democrat presidential candidate to wear his religion on his sleeve, refusing to let the right-wing lay exclusive claim to God.

Now however, Pastor Wright’s well-publicized racist, anti-Semitic and anti-American rantings — and his endorsement and honoring of Nation of Islam black supremis Louis Farrakhan — have inflicted a body blow to the Obama campaign. In a matter of days, Obama shifted from a tacit defense of Wright to outright repudiation. This has put Obama at odds with his church members, who accuse the press of character assassination. Apparently, Obama has joined the assassins out of necessity.

Beyond the bounds of credibility, Obama claims to have never … repeat “never” … heard such rhetoric when he was in attendance. Not once in 20 years. (Why does that sound like, “I never once had sex with that woman?”) Sounding a bit like an old school marm, the senator claims that had he heard such hateful rhetoric from the pulpit, he would have talked to Pastor Wright to express his disapproval. Tsk! Tsk!

Lincoln once said that “widely held beliefs, whether will or ill founded, have the impact of fact.” For Obama, this means his excuses cannot dissuade the public from a now widely held belief that he is … lying. For the first time his denial lacks plausibility.

In attempt to bridge the racial gap, Obama sites the racism of his grandmother – calling it white “inbred” racism. Well, that sure backfired. Now a lot of non-racist white folks are highly insulted. The accusation of pandemic inbred racism among whites sounds like black paranoia and an affirmation of deep seeded racism on the part of Obama. Sounds like something Pastor Wright might have bellowed from the pulpit – but of course, Obama would not have been there to hear it.

One way to execute damage control is to inflict some of the same damage on the opponent. So, the Obama folks dropped a photo of Pastor Wright standing with President Clinton for one of those get-in-line photo ops. How pathetic. Rather than expose the Clintons with this sophomoric stunt, Obama exposed the beads of desperation sweat on his political brow. His handlers are smart enough to know that their candidate could be marching to the convention with an already inflicted mortal wound. This is just the kind of situation that argues for the super delegates to exercise independent judgment at the time of the convention.

None of this will have much impact on the black vote. He is their guy. It does, however, continue affect white voter thinking. Obama is no longer the post-racial unifer. Having dodged the less credible case of being a stealth Manchurian candidate for radical Muslimism, he now appears to be more credibly pegged as a latent adherent of black racist theology. Furthermore, his tenuous hold on the largely liberal Democrat Jewish vote is being undone by Pastor Wright’s anti-Semitic homilies. Suddenly, Michelle Obama’s statement that she was never proud of America in the past takes on a more ominous meaning.

As he did with the Rezko affair, Obama sought to use a public relations platform to purge the demons of negative public opinion with a grand statement of conscience – a speech. This was his latest moment to “come clean.” While his supporters have branded his oration in Philadelphia as seminal, and the liberal press touts his success in rising above the racial muck, polls suggest that most Americans are less awed..

No one would question Obama’s speechifying talent. His racial manifesto was well written and well presented. An A+ in any speech class. The only problem, it did not stem the flow of white voters into the Clinton camp — and to the McCain camp, if Obama should turn out to be the candidate. It seems to me that the amount of exuberant praise the speech is receiving from his supporters reveals the fear more than the joy. I think they doth praise too much.

Whatever assurances are offered up, it is clear that THE speech did not bring the Pastor Wright problem to closure. Clinton will be necessarily restrained in taking advantage of Obama’s religious crisis, and the issue may ebb between now and the convention. But rest assured, the church affiliation brouhaha will have its effect, and you can bet it will be played out again before November. Already, it is on endless loop on the Internet.

And don’t you have the feeling that one of these days there will be yet another nasty revelation involving Pastor Wright?

>REACT: Spitzer and the (very) happy Hooker

>Sex scandal brings down another public hypocrite. New York Governor Eliot Spitzer is history … toast … soon to be yesterday’s news. I am sure being Governor of New York causes a lot of tension. And what is a guy to do? You have to get away sometime. You have to blow off that tension. We don’t need any scientific reports to know that “doing it” is one great way to do it.

There are four facets of the Spitzer affair that caught my attention – and pay special attention to number 4.

1. It is not about the sex. It is about the cover up and the hypocrisy. Going around in public with a holier than thou attitude while sleazing around in private is a no-no. We do not like people giving us sanctimonious lectures while ignoring their own advice. I think that is why Bill Clinton is still popular with the public. He never went around say thou shalt not do this or that. Yeah, he lied about the sex, but he never said he wasn’t a sex addict or a liar.

2. It is the cover up that does you in. Part and parcel of any hypocrisy is the cover up. It is the use of false identities that could land Spitzer in court with a criminal indictment. The only real legal consequence of the sex is a possible date with his wife in divorce court. As noted before, all the scandal befallen public figures faced justice on the basis of the cover up … not the sex. Way back when British Secretary of State for War John Profumo was booted, it was not because of his dalliance with showgirl Christine Keeler (also the mistriss of a Russion spy) but for lying to Parliament. Richard Nixon was not culpable for the break-in at the Watergate by his over zealous friends, but for the cover up. Even Bill Clinton survived the sex scandal(s), but was rebuked, impeached and had his law license suspended for the attempted cover up – that little matter of perjury.

3. $80,000 DOLLARS!!!! I have never engaged the services of a prostitute. In fact, I have always thought it was more an admission of failure and inferiority, than a demonstration of macho virility. Intellectually, I can understand why some men may engage the services of a sexual gratification professional. What is beyond my comprehension is the price Spitzer paid. His total dollars-for-dolls expenditure exceeds $80,000, according to reports.

The call-girl operation he chose is no doubt exclusive. At prices ranging from $1000 to $4000 an hour, I am amazed they have any customers at all. Even rich people cannot be that desperate and that stupid – and that incapable of seducing the wife of some judge. The sex service rates should be a monthly retainer, not an hourly fee. So, in addition to Spitzer being a philanderer, a money launderer and a patron of illegal prostitutes, he suffers the ultimate humiliation of being one super-sized sucker – or in his case suckee.

4. Tripped up by the IRS. Now comes the real scary part. Allow me to quote from the Associated Press article.

The case involving Spitzer started when banks noticed frequent cash transfers from several accounts and filed suspicious activity reports with the Internal Revenue Service, a law enforcement official told The Associated Press. The accounts were traced back to Spitzer , leading public corruption investigators to open an inquiry.

Go back and read that again. (pause)

Okay, let’s go on now. Spitzer’s bank … the bank holding the PERSONAL accounts of the Governor of New York City … noticed some “cash transfers” and filed a “suspicious activity report” with the Internal Revenue Service.

There are a bunch of murky rules that require banks to inform “Big Brother” about certain types of transactions by depositors. These could include the deposit or withdrawal of cash – and the amounts do not have to be huge. They can tattle on you if you transfer money in and out of the country. You are limited in the amount of cash you can have in your pocket when you go in or out of the country.

According to the government snoops, cash is the currency of crooks. If you deal in a lot of case, you must be a crook. That’s the reasoning. The mere presence of cash in your pocket in an amount greater than some bureaucrats deem necessary is enough to cause government’s evil eye of suspicion to stare down upon you. Actually, you don’t need to have it in your pocket. Just tranfer cash to places, people or in amounts unacceptable to the government and you, too, can be the subject of a “suspicious activity report.”

The problem with much of law enforcement and prosecution is that once they suspect you of something, they are determined to prove it with the full resources at their disposal. I am not saying Sptizer did not do something wrong and did not deserve his comeuppence, but I would rather have had him go undetected than to have the banks and the IRS eroding the cherished freedoms we were all intended to enjoy.

Philandering and hypocritical politicians maybe lead us to worry a bit. It is nothing, however, compared to the horror of the government monitoring how we use our hard-earned money. Of the latter you can be afraid … be very afraid.

Footnote: The above photo was taken as Spitzer was responding to the question, “Did you give the girls anything besides money?”

>REACT: Obama’s race card could be a joker

>Barack Obama wins an impressive victory in South Carolina. No doubt about it. His victory assures that he will never be putting his feet up on the desk in the Oval Office – at least not his season.

What, you say? Since when does a big victory portend defeat? Answer: In the other-side-of-the-mirror world of politics. Remember, this is the Democrat primary and South Carolina is not a typical state – southern or otherwise.

Obama played the reverse race card brilliantly. The campaign that was alleged to NOT be about race was all about race in South Carolina. Why not? He learned the advantages of the race card in arguably the most racist political machine in American. He saw how it was used to advantage to bring in Harold Washington victory in a three-way primary race – with two white candidates (ironically, a man and a woman) to split the vote. And, he was there to witness the restoration of white supremacy in Chicago by making all issues a matter of black and white.

With more than fifty percent of the Democrat voters in South Carolina being black, this was more of a slam-dunk than an upset victory for Obama. Jessie Jackson, in hopeless pursuit of the Democrat presidential nomination, came out on top in South Carolina in both 1984 and 1988.

Having released the rabid dogs of racism from their cages, Obama has made race an issue – more than just the obvious fact that he is running as a black man. Dividing blacks and whites in South Carolina may have been good hardball politics for the day. However, as the Democrat primary moves to other states, there is likely be a backlash against Obama, who has shifted from the promise of a president of all the people – the uniter – to the activist representative of the black community. To some degree, he morphed himself a bit into the type of black candidate (a la Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton) who get rejected by the broad base of voters.

In this latest primary, Obama got three-quarters of the black Democrat vote, leaving Hillary and Edwards to divide up the remaining 25 percent. The white vote was the reverse. Only race (read that racism), as the number one issue, could have produced that result.

These figures also show that Democrat voters a quite, shall we say, racially driven. The racism card would be a useless deuce if it did not win the hand. The South Carolina Primary was a black verses white contest. So much for the party of inclusion.

The backlash from South Carolina’s racist vote, and Obama’s pandering, is so significant that several left-wing bloggers accuse the Clintons of putting the race card face up – cynically surrendering South Carolina for gains in the big states coming up in a matter of days — sort of anticipating the racist response of white Democrat voters. Okay, I said it was cynical, and I am just reporting what some of the more liberal bloggers are saying.

Considering the black community votes disproportionately – way disproportionately — in the Democrat primary, Obama’s pleas for racial solidarity provide an edge. If he were to make it to the general election, he will have to somehow undo his black activist message. South Carolina now makes that a little more difficult.