Political Cortex: Brain Food for the Body Politic

Last Sunday night, I only listened to seven minutes' worth of Beyond the Beltway in the third segment of the weekly national radio program hosted by Bruce DuMont. Yet in that brief span of time, I caught a glimpse of the state of our presidential campaign and of the state of our nation.

First, I saw in my mind's eye the state of the presidential contest. I listened closely to the lively discussion. In what was being said and in the tone of the commentators' voices, I could tell that Senator Hillary Clinton is getting desperate. Her campaign has raised tens of millions of dollars, told dozens of outright lies, flashed mudslinging advertisements all over TV, and benefited from voting machine jugglery, and after all that her delegate count (including unpledged delegates, or "superdelegates") is still far insufficient to win the Democratic nomination for president. No one knew who Barack Obama was four years ago at this time, yet this fellow senator has won more primary elections by much larger popular vote majorities and garnered more delegates for the Democratic nomination than Mrs. Clinton. It is now quite obvious, if it was not already obvious before, which candidate is more popular with Democratic American voters in general.

All ye Hillary supporters, face the facts: Hillary Clinton cannot win nomination without breaking the rules. She has a large and extremely well-oiled propaganda machine, but little real support in Middle America. Her campaign was bound to be tough from the get-go since most Americans don't like her. It has been common knowledge for years that Mrs. Clinton cannot even count on support from a majority of the members of her own party. Yet her drive for power compels the consummate politician and opportunistic demagogue to persist in running. As New York columnist Peggy Noonan wrote in the May 9 Wall Street Journal, whether Mrs. Clinton's nomination tears apart the Democratic Party and whether her election destroys the country is of little concern. What matters is getting elected president by any means necessary.

Two people in a row from Ohio, the state that every president has won, called into the show this evening. One of them pointed out that race and gender are real factors in the Democrats' campaign, and I had to agree with that. Senator Obama can depend on receiving upwards of 80 percent of black votes everywhere in the nation; in contrast, Senator Clinton cannot rely on the female vote partly because women are a more fluid and changeable political group. Moreover, gender identity among white women is a much weaker unifying force than racial identity among African-Americans. The other caller observed that Mrs. Clinton has an edge over Obama in West Virginia, whereas Obama had an edge over Mrs. Clinton in Oregon. His point was that Obama can win a greater diversity of strongly Republican, strongly Democratic and swing states than Mrs. Clinton has the ability to do.

Second, I caught a glimpse of the state of our nation that evening. The commentators discussed the possibility of a hotly contested Democratic convention this coming August given Hillary's intransigence and Obama's popular momentum. I'm not sure whether that will happen. I think that Hillary for president and Obama for vice president is a likely result, notwithstanding their depiction in the media as sworn enemies. The "inevitability factor" of Mrs. Clinton's presidential crusade, which Mr. DuMont has referred to, is a real factor: the US senator and former First Lady has been planning this run for the highest office ever since her husband left it in 2001--in fact, she has been scheming even before that. I remember my Grandma telling us (to our disgust) from watching network news in late 2000 that Hillary Clinton was already looking to run for president.

Like an expert chess player, Mrs. Clinton has been quietly arranging the pieces for her victory for a long time. Originally, she had expected to run for and win the presidency in 2004 by riding a wave of discontent with the Bush administration's foreign policy, but decided not to because her own popularity was far too low, President Bush's popularity remained higher than expected, and memories of the previous Clinton administration were a bit too fresh still, necessitating a "new" Democratic face such as Senator John Kerry.

Two years later, after Hurricane Katrina and a wave of scandals within the Bush administration, Mrs. Clinton floated the idea of her candidacy using the tactic that it's time we had a woman president. Polling data returned this sensible, dispassionate conclusion: "Americans ready for woman president, but not her." Mrs. Clinton's haughty response to that public rebuke was to step up the idea of her candidacy--and she has been stepping it up ever since, regardless of polling data, with utter contempt for the American people--especially for blue-collar workers--whose support she craves so badly.

With artful cunning, Mrs. Clinton has advanced outrageous ideas under cover of human rights, or necessity, or opportunity, or national security. Abortion? That's murder. Universal compulsory federal health care? That's Communism. A universal "baby bond"? Socialism run amuck. "Obliterate Iran" (and 70 million innocent people)? That's an unimaginable war crime. I cannot believe that many conscientious American voters who pause to reflect on these ideas, their genesis, the rationale behind them, and their logical conclusion would take Mrs. Clinton seriously as a presidential candidate.

Mrs. Clinton, a chess grandmaster of politics, has done what all successful petty politicians have been doing since time immemorial: she has managed to portray herself as a friend of the average American, while remaining as much an elitist as ever. She is a wolf in sheep's clothing that is cleverly pulling on Americans' heartstrings and asking them to please allow her the opportunity to guard this hen house known as the USA. To the extent that does not work (and it will not so long as American voters remain rational), this impostor will attempt to force her way into the White House with the assistance of the subservient Beltway media.

Speaking of the Beltway, Mrs. Clinton lives and works right in the heart of America's major media, so she is ideally placed for political success, even at the cost of popular failure. Since 2007 the big media has consistently given her farcical campaign more attention than that of any other candidate. Thus it's particularly interesting that Beyond the Beltway--a live call-in political talk show dedicated to public debate and discussion from outside the major media's perspective--happens to be headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, the hometown of presidential candidate Barack Obama. Although the show may be a little biased in his favor due to that circumstance, at least it is not biased in favor of Mrs. Clinton.

Our nation is divided courtesy of a corrupt two-party system. We spend hours of time arguing the merits of Hillary Clinton versus Barack Obama, and both of these contenders versus the pro-life Republican candidate John McCain, and who we should vote for, and who we should vote against, and whether we should even vote at all. It is a pitiable scene.

I agree with Bruce DuMont's motto: "Play by the rules or suffer the consequences." To which I would add: Defend the right to life of the unborn or suffer the consequences. At this critical juncture in our nation's history, the last thing we need is a godless, unscrupulous, pro-abortion, pro-sodomy, high-and-mighty, New Age, radical feminist, huckster, charlatan president stealing the White House.