Are Women Never Frontrunners and Is Obama Offering Despair?

If the lawyer described above had been just as charismatic but named, say, Achola Obama instead of Barack Obama, her goose would have been cooked long ago. Indeed, neither she nor Hillary Clinton could have used Mr. Obama’s public style — or Bill Clinton’s either — without being considered too emotional by Washington pundits.

Is Gloria Steinem right? Quite a few men I know think so. This is very interesting to me, because as a woman, I don't like Hillary for the same reasons I don't like Obama and Edwards--I find her policies repugnant. But some men I know, one called her a "beast of a woman", dislike her viscerally. Now, another friend says it's not because she's a woman, but a woman with horrible baggage. And that's true, too.

Well, Hillary just won New Hampshire, so maybe the voters will pick a woman there. Time will tell.

Now, onto Obama, the man audacious enough to hope. Hope what? Shrinkwrapped has a piece you absolutely must read about Obama. He describes, better than anyone the emptiness of Obama's campaign:

Some of these thoughts have been sparked by Barak Obama's peculiar construction of The Audacity of Hope. (I have not read the book and do not plan to; I am strictly concerned with the title and its meaning.) I have thus far found Barak Obama to be a very appealing and very interesting candidate. At the same time I am struck by the paucity of details in his presentation. His speeches are uplifting but platitudinous. Beyond his record, brief though it is, of traditional left-leaning Democratic liberalism, his major appeal appears to be his "audacity of hope." The language is almost an oxymoron. COnsider Audacity:

au·dac·i·ty [aw-das-i-tee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -ties. 1. boldness or daring, esp. with confident or arrogant disregard for personal safety, conventional thought, or other restrictions.
2. effrontery or insolence; shameless boldness: His questioner's audacity shocked the lecturer.
3. Usually, audacities. audacious acts or statements.

Audacity is an acitve, aggressive word.

Contrast with Hope.

Hope, Shrink points out, is all you have when everything is lost:

There is absolutely nothing audacious about Hope; if anything it is the last shred we hold onto when despair threatens. It requires no "boldness or daring," no "confident or arrogant disregard for personal safety, conventional thought, or other restrictions" to have Hope.

Hope is what we have left when events have overtaken us and we have recognized that the outcome is independent of our efforts. We can no longer control or influence events, we can merely Hope that Zeus will be merciful on us.

The spirit of passivity that accompanies Hope fits with the traditional liberalism (proposed by populists on both left and right) that proposes larger government as the answer to our current difficulties.

On the Left and the Right, the field is filled with deeply flawed people. Either lacking in character or empty of vision or small-minded or too slick, the candidates all seem to be problematic in a major way. Some might say it's the over-analysis by the press or the exceedingly long season that's heightening the flaws, but I don't think so.

The next American president doesn't seem destined for greatness, no matter who he or she may end up being.

That's What I'm Sayin'

There are times when I think the blogosphere is an echo chamber. In fact, I wonder what the heck I'm doing when people smarter and more articulate are out there saying exactly what I think. Today James Lileks wrote such a post:

Huckabee: he makes me recoil, instinctively. Some of this has to do with his positions, but it’s mostly the particular flavor of his religiosity and the thickness of its application to his campaign. People who think he’s some Elmer Gantry-type who’ll run around tossing flag-wrapped Bibles into the crowd overstate the case, but still: he just strikes me as one of those fellows who’ll treat you with respect and friendship and good cheer, and you know he thinks you’re going to hell. No, that’s not fair, but there it is. I don’t think he’s a phony - Bill Clinton was a phony, but he was such a genuine heartfelt phony it didn’t matter. Huckabee just rubs me the wrong way. Nothing more profound or irrational than that.

Mitt Romney? Super-brainy smart, a proven administrator, impeccably decent. In some parallel universe where good is bad and bad is good and James Bond serves Satan, Mitt Romney is Blofeld. He’s an admirable man in many ways. But my favorite finely-crafted piece of Stickley furniture is an admirable piece of wood in many ways, too. I cannot warm to Romney.

Lileks has so much more to say and it's all worth reading.

Read More This Year

Time for New Years resolutions, right? Many people commit to reading more in the new year and that's a fantastic goal. How to get there? Some good ideas here.

HD DVD vs. Blue Ray

Blue Ray wins. I wouldn't be buying an HD DVD player anytime soon folks. Bad investment.

Islam & Women

I'm not going to belabor this point, but it is laughable to me the multi-culti types who ignore the treatment of women in Islam even as they, justifiably at times, condemn Christianity's mistreatment of women.

Sometimes a picture tells a thousand words. And more pictures tell even more stories. Pamela Gellar shows rather than tells the story. You need to see this story.

Iran Provokes the U.S.: Open War .... Almost

You should know about this, if you haven't read about it already.

Why Populism Rings True Right Now

Huckabee's rise and the success on the left of all the big three candidates (and their seeming dead heat and similar message) brings populism front and center. For democracy to work in America and in successful nations around the world, there needs to be a sense of fairness. Opportunities need to be available to everyone and there needs to be a sense of safety. This last issue has grown as people have taken on the entitlement attitude. They expect social security. They expect Medicare. They expect drug benefits. And with the medical-insurance problems and the threat of economic woe should a person have a health issue, American citizens expect the government to fix it. And by "fix", I mean that someone else should pay for their problems. Oh, and the economy can never go into a recession, because that will cause problems, too.

Conservatives have ignored this strain within the party. The true believers--anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, evangelicals--are not necessarily small-government libertarians. (And this type of thing incenses them.) George Bush recognizes this fact, I think, which is why he pushed through the No Child Left Behind bill and the Prescription Drug Benefit. That's his definition of compassionate conservatism.

Huckabee gets this and I think the other candidates ignore this streak in the party to their own peril. There must be some answers to why small government is important. And there must be some answers for the middle class who feel squeezed and one check away from disaster. They might not like the answers, but their difficulties need to be acknowledged. (Of course, if Huckabee's out, then the others can keep pounding their personal messages.)

And then there's the environment. I know this sounds strange, but I've said before and I'll say it again: there are many on the conservative side who feel the environment is an important issue. Like abolition and equal rights, stewardship of the earth is a Christian issue. Some of the most ardent recyclers are Christians motivated to "dress and keep" the earth. They are zealous and dedicated.

In order for the Republican candidates to resonate with these constituents, they're going to have to recognize who's voting for them. Ignoring issues that matter to voters is never a good idea. And while a Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney may do well in the general election, these guys have to appeal to a complex base first. It's not all God and guns and it's not all small government and tax breaks in the Republican party.

Truly, the Republican party is a big, diverse tent, far more so than the Democrats. The Democrats just want a Democrat in office at this point--Hillary, Obama or Edwards would all do nicely. They're the same person just in different colors, shapes and clothes. But the Republican part has grown more diverse as time has gone on. That partly explains the diversity of the candidates.

The candidate who wins on the Republican side will be the one who appeals to the diverse many. I think they all need to tweak their messages.

Free Speech and Radical Islam in Canada

I have been following the persecution of Mark Steyn from the beginning, but the story must be reaching critical mass because my brother sent a link to this article with the note saying "You have to blog on this asap!"

Free speech seems to be a uniquely American notion these days as other democracies are caving to politically correct demands. In Canada, an excerpt from Mark Steyn's book America Alone prompted this, as Steyn himself describes:

I don't know whether my bestselling book is still available in Canadian bookstores, but it's coming soon to a Canadian "courtroom" near you! The Canadian Islamic Congress and a handful of Osgoode Hall law students have complained about the article in Maclean's to (at last count) three of Canada's many "human rights" commissions, two of which have agreed to hear the "case." It would be nice to report that the third sent the plaintiffs away with a flea in their ears saying that in a free society it's no business of the state to regulate the content of privately owned magazines. Alas, I gather it's only bureaucratic torpor that has temporarily delayed the province of Ontario's en thusiastic leap upon the bandwagon. These students are not cited in the offending article. Canadian Muslims are not the subject of the piece. Indeed, Canada is not mentioned at all, except en passant. Yet Canada's "human rights" commissions have accepted the premise of the Canadian Islamic Congress--that the article potentially breaches these students' "human rights."

This legal imbroglio will pave the way for more speech suppression if the case goes the way the Islamic agitators hope. What speech offends you? And what should happen to those who offend you? Roast them, I say! Steyn notes the obvious:

CBC commentator Rex Murphy said Maclean's should not have to defend itself for starting debate and stirring thought.

"Is every touchy, or agenda-driven sensibility now free to call upon the offices of the state and ... embroil them in 'justifying' their right to write and broadcast as they see fit?" he asked on CBC's flagship news program, The National.

Steyn said the CIC and law students acting on its behalf aimed to shut down debate by making it more trouble than it's worth for editors to run pieces on controversial topics.

But he added, "In using quasi-judicial coercion to squash debate, they make one of the central points of my argument -- that a proportion of Islam is inimical to Western traditions of freedom -- more eloquently than I ever could."

I have read Steyn's book. It sits on my bookshelf in all its red splendor. The way to rebel against this sort of nonsense is to support Mark Steyn. Buy his book today. Here. Or here are some other links on how to support him:

National Review

Or send a book to the Saudi's. They need some edumacation.

Searching for a Savior

Every four years, America takes personal stock and rechecks the direction of the country. Americans look at themselves, they look at their family, friends and neighbors, they look at society and they look at the world. What they see usually isn't good. Since George Washington took office until now, America has looked like an unmitigated mess in need of a Savior.

So, the search for the new savior begins. Some want a fresh new-face savior. Some want a savior with experience saving. But all want as perfect a savior as can be found.

Most of the savior wannabes wink and nod at the savior expectations and have strong pragmatic bent. That's the nature of politics. Survival means making deals and often the deals are good but not great, morally OK but not ideologically pure. And the new crop is no different. For all the lofty change rhetoric or unspoken but obvious change (Hillary, a woman for president), the Democrat candidates are cut from the same bolt of bland liberal cloth. They are closet socialists but would have to fight tooth and nail with a divided Congress to achieve their ends. On the Republican side, it's mostly the same, save one.

Mike Huckabee possesses the magic that some have been looking for. He even has the sing-song preacher speak. He understands the plight of the common man. He knows the frustration of hospital bills that a fat belly brings. He knows how the middle class has been ignored. Mike Huckabee is a man of the cloth, not afraid to say God and hates abortion and gay marriage.

"I'm a one-issue voter, plain and simple, right is right," said the mom at the roller rink. "Abortion is wrong and Mike Huckabee is the only one who'll say it. He's got my vote."

But don't you consider the redistribution of wealth on a grand scale or slamming the middle class with taxes to be immoral? He raised taxes significantly in Arkansas. And aren't you concerned that America needs a man of bigger vision considering the precarious nature of world events (and Huckabee can't seem to keep his facts straight)?

"If that's even true about the tax thing. That's what people say. Well, I don't mind paying higher taxes if the man is a man of God."

Some have said that Huckabee is the noose the conservative movement has wrought and that Republicans will be hung with it, finally, this presidential season. This sentiment is usually accompanied with gleeful gales of evil laughter. And up until now, I've dismissed the inane Huckabee worship and his chances for President, but I'm reconsidering.

Far too many seemingly reasonable people I know like Mike Huckabee. He's funny. He believes. He's an overcomer. He's not beholden to the power brokers. The fact that many others, including other Republicans despise him, actually seems to enhance his status. He is the savior of the common man.

And while there is a nice long delusional streak among the Democrats, the right side of spectrum seems to have one, too, and the deluded love Mike. A number of conservatives struggle month-to-month and worry about paying the bills. They want big government. They want guaranteed jobs. They don't like NAFTA. They seek protectionism. They like their guns and they like Social Security. They wouldn't mind if someone paid their hospital bills either.

Mike Huckabee is the savior. And I think he has a chance.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News.

Who Are We Fighting Again?

The worst sort of haters:

Last month al-Qa’eda bombed a UN building in Algiers because, like de Mello, it was symbolic of the decent world which the Islamists want to destroy. Eleven UN officials were killed at once. And so it goes on.

The murder of Bhutto, the murder of UN officials, the countless murders of innocent Iraqis, the murder of Lebanese who fight for their democracy, the murder of commuters in Madrid and London are all part of the same war against people and life. They are all part of the same deadly global ideology of hatred and despair. These assaults will not end if we retreat — from Afghanistan, from Iraq or anywhere else. Weakness will cause the terrorists to redouble their efforts.

We fight for life and happiness against death and despair.

President Huckabee or President Obama UPDATED

How do them apples strike you? Do you feel like you just ate a worm?

I'm coming to believe that I'm more moderate in my political beliefs than I ever imagined. The primary voters in Iowa, if they are representative of the mood of the country chose extremes--at least superficial extremes. In Huckabee, the voters get a folksy, religious populist in the Jimmy Carter strain. In Obama, the voters get a "change agent" outsider willing to take on D.C.

Neither man is what the voters believe them to be. In fact, they're more alike than different when it comes to their view of the role of government. Both believe that government solutions is the answer to all problems. Both use the victim rhetoric to appeal to the oppressed. Who in America is oppressed these days? For all the wealth and prosperity and personal happiness, it doesn't seem to be enough. Everyone carries the victim mantle now, and the candidate who best taps into the resentment gets the votes. Actually, the Dems feel victimized just living in a country that elected George W. Bush, twice. And the conservative Republicans are fuming about immigration and the corrupting influence of Washington. It seems like every Republican sells out. Still, it seems to be pure fantasy that either candidate will change much.

And then, these guys will have to be elected by the general population. Both are extreme. I'm a rather conservative Christian and Huckabee turns my stomach. And while I like Obama for his personality and his attitude, he's too inexperienced. Period. Not to mention that he's also exceedingly liberal in the Chicago strain of liberal. Um, no. The presidency is not where you gain your first executive experience, or it shouldn't be the first place that happens.

Having these guys in the general election will cause all sorts of electoral distress. I would predict record low turnout. Many people will pick neither candidate. This is all conjecture, though. It's early.

Huckabee won't be the Republican candidate. As much love as he got in Iowa, he won't feel the same thing other places. Romney is sliding. Without his immense personal wealth his goose would already be cooked. I cannot believe that I'm writing this, but John McCain is coming back and may well surprise everyone. Fred Thompson might come back, too. We'll see.

Will Obama be the nominee? It's a very good maybe. It's definitely between Obama and Clinton. The inevitability of Hillary has worn off and Obama's win may embolden voters who personally liked Obama better but were afraid to vote for him. But Hillary is a disciplined machine. That counts for a lot. George W. Bush's discipline and support structure made the difference down the stretch.

More thoughts:

The Anchoress doesn't think Iowa means squat. And she so distrusts Huckabee (as do I) that she's leery of his using Chesterton to lure Catholics. Ugh. Well, I think Iowa means more than squat. I think it's shifted the Democrat side significantly. The Republicans? I still view Huckabee as a Dean who has yet to really scream.

Betsy Newmark talks about how Iowans chose "novices" when the world events seem to demand experience. She, too, hopes Huckabee fades fast. It has occurred to me, that bloggers might be considered part of the elite chattering class by the average voter. Do bloggers skew libertarian or just more liberal?

Captain Ed says that Hillary is a spoil sport. Has she ever struck you as gracious? That would not be one of the first qualities I'd pick.

I'll add more updates later. It's just a start.

UPDATE:

In the Iowans are idiots department: Jonah Goldberg says this (read the whole thing):

More important, if Iowans are so deadly serious about the issues, why is ethanol the third rail of Iowa politics? It’s hard to reconcile the idea that Iowans are exemplary custodians of civil virtue with the fact that they are rabid defenders of welfare checks for government moonshine.

John Hawkins gives clear-headed analysis, but I'm more interested in fantasizing about Fred Thompson pulling this out.

Iowa

Fox calls for Huckabee and Obama. Well, on to New Hampshire.

Huckabee will never be elected. Never. Just want to say it again.

White people voted for Obama. This is important to note. America has changed. It's a new day.

On Secrets and Death and Life

Hi all, thought I'd share some interesting articles/blog posts I've read recently:

The Belmont Club has an excellent post about "open secrets"--the truth everyone knows but won't say. The "unspeakables" that afflict nearly every culture from family to corporation to country make for monumental problems eventually. That's how a tiger can jump a fence that has been known for years and years to be too low and maul and kill a boy amongst other examples.

Not just autistic children have trouble with executive functioning or deciding priorities and what to do next. Boys in general have this problem, children on the autistic spectrum have it in spades. Hans Asperger called the syndrome "extreme maleness". There's a solution. For guys like Einstein, marrying a cousin who took care of everything was the solution. In this modern world, where a man better be able to do his own filing and organization, here's the solution.

Want to know where I am politically? I'm right with my soul sister The Anchoress, that's where. She says this:

So, I’m going to focus on Fred and Rudy. Unless something interesting develops elsewhere, I believe I am currently intrigued most by “Freeman Fred,” who works to please no one and seems almost inconoclastic in his disdain for the excesses of the modern political process, and by “Rudy the Ready” who, as a New Yorker, I know, value and trust.

My thoughts exactly. For what it's worth, dear Anchoress, John Hawkins believes we're going to be disappointed. I still have a slim hope, though. And here's what's coming down the pipe from the Romney campaign. If true, he's done.

And then we turn to honor killings--in the United States. One, here in Texas. I'm speechless, but you should know this is happening. Alas.

My liberal friends, so trusting of the government are they, that they'd like socialized medicine. Would they like this? I think not. And phone companies suck, too.

It's important to note the beautiful beginnings in life and a blog friend of mine is in the middle of a beautiful beginning. I bet he isn't getting much sleep! To bring in 2008, his wife brought in a baby. Congratulations, Brendan! Welcome to more joy than you thought possible! (He has some good advice for new parents, btw. Hint! Hint! Bro, any day now!)

Brendan brings up an important point. Is there love at first sight? Yes. Ask any parent. 

Most Americans Love Their Life, Hate Society

It's an interesting phenomenon when people like their life. but dislike the direction the country is going. Most people are happy. Most people are satisfied. Yet, they worry about the world out there. Part of me thinks that this perspective is due to the incredible wealth and comfort everyone has. It's so good and it's been so good for so long, that the greatest fear people deal with today is that it could all be taken away. And the boogyman is out there just waiting to do it.

Perhaps that's why George Bush is so vilified. Only Stephen King could come up with a more loathsome monster than the press has succeeded in doing. The images portrayed are so cartoonish and extreme. President Bush sits around with his evil minions scheming about how to screw up the country and the world.

And now there's a new President to pick. Of course, all the Republicans are evil in one form or another. The Democrats cartoonish paragons of virtue. Either way, the President is giving immense power to changes things for good or ill. And the American President is powerful. 

But does the President have the power to destroy America? Is the power out there or is the power still in the hands of the people?

Teacher Burnout: It's The Parent's Fault

Demanding parents burn out teachers according to a small German study. Does this hold for American teachers? Maybe. The demands on teachers have increased with the standardized testing. In wealthier school districts, competitive parents may blame a teacher for a child's lackluster performance. But in poorer districts, teachers lament the lack of parental involvement. If parents were involved, they'd feel less exhausted. So, I'm not sure this study has enough breadth or depth to be of value in America.

One reason for homeschooling my children was that the school system burnt me out. I don't recall my mom having to do projects for me anywhere through school unless it was for an extracurricular activity. It seemed that my kids brought home a project at least every other week that was beyond their capability. That meant that mom was doing homework. In addition, both kids had to read daily (no biggie, they did anyway) and I had to sign their book saying how much they read. A girlfriend taught her kids to forge her initials. Why hadn't I thought of that?

There does seem to be some inherent tension between schools and parents. Working parents strapped for time blame the teacher for their kids' achievement. Teachers blame parents for undisciplined kids. They're both right, probably. One thing about homeschooling, it's my own dang fault if my children turn out to be dull-witted cretins. Of course, I don't think any teacher would hold themselves as responsible as I feel, if it just turns out to be a challenging year developmentally.

It seems a good solution for both parents and teachers would be school choice and vouchers. The teachers could be confident that their students are there because the parents wanted their children there. The competitive urge would kick in. Teachers would be offended when parents tried to get their kids into another school and work harder. Parents would research and become more involved. It would be a win-win. Why would the teacher's union reject vouchers? It would help them, too.