Clickon WORD or PDF below for full content
Christopher Hitchens says Hillary’s defeat can’t be blamed on sexism.
Posterity may well remember the Hillary Clinton campaign as the nearest that a member of the female gender had thus far gotten to the nomination of a major political party. But the episode will be recalled for many other salient features as well. The first time that the wife of an ex-president had leveraged her first-lady status into a senatorial seat and then a bid for the presidency. The first time that the candidate’s spouse (and campaigner in chief) was a person who had been disbarred for perjury and impeached for—among other things—obstruction of justice. The first time since the 1960s that a Democrat seeking the nomination had implicitly relied on a “Southern strategy” of appealing to the rancor of the “white working class.” The first time since the lachrymose Ed Muskie that a candidate’s eyes had welled up with tears in New Hampshire. The first time that a woman candidate was married to a man who had been believably accused of rape and sexual harassment (see my book No One Left To Lie To). The first time that a candidate had said of her half-African-American rival that he was not a member of the Muslim faith “as far as I know.” The first time that the loser in the delegate count had failed to congratulate or even acknowledge the winner on the night of his historic victory.
These are quite a lot of firsts to have accumulated. But now Sen. Clinton’s partisans are crying foul and saying that the Democratic primary voters, incited by the media, only rejected her for something known as sexism. This indistinct and vague offense, portentously invoked in many recent articles and “news analyses,” is supposed to be revealed (as a New York Times report on its own reporting so masochistically phrased it) in such outrageous ways as the following: “The New York Times wrote about Mrs. Clinton’s ‘cackle.’ “…
… Her whole self-pitying campaign, I mean to say, has retarded and infantilized the political process and has used the increasingly empty term sexism to mask the defeat of one of the nastiest and most bigoted candidacies in modern history.
And David Harsanyi says her loss is tragic for her, but not for women.
… Though her tone suggests otherwise, Hillary isn’t entitled to anything for losing — even if the race was lost by a narrow margin.
In fact, a Clinton being deprived of another run at the White House isn’t a national tragedy at all.
It’s not a tragedy for women. It’s not a tragedy for feminists. It’s not a tragedy for Democrats.
It’s only a tragedy for the Clintons.
The Economist writes on improvements in Iraq.
THOUGH still lacerated by the tragedy of the past five years, Iraq is at last getting better all round. The violence, albeit still ferocious in parts of the country, has subsided dramatically. The American military “surge” that began a year ago has worked better than even the optimists had hoped, helped by ceasefires with Shia militias, by accords with Sunni tribal leaders and by the fact that sectarian cleansing in many areas is sadly complete.
Politics is also beginning to stutter towards something approaching normality, with signs of an accommodation between the three main communities—Shia Arabs, Sunni Arabs and Kurds—and the prospect of a series of vital laws, on such matters as sharing the revenue from oil, being passed, though they are still subject to endless last-minute hiccups. Some key laws, for instance on pensions and the budget, have recently been enacted. A set of provincial elections towards the end of this year has a chance of empowering the aggrieved Sunni Arabs. Various Sunni ministers who walked out of the government a year ago in a huff may soon be back in.
The economy has begun to grow fast too, though its ripples have yet to be felt across the country. The soaring price of oil, along with a mild improvement in production to just above its pre-war peak, mean that the government has more cash to spend than it is has had since the first Gulf war of 1991. …
Tony Blankley on the reaction to the Irish vote.
… I find it melancholy to consider that perhaps people aspire to self-government not because it is the natural and dignified condition of man to be free and self-governing – but merely only if it is likely to turn a quick economic profit.
Which brings me to the Irish vote. After a similar vote was lost in 2005 in France by 55 percent and in Holland by 64 percent, the decision of the European elite was to re-decide the matter by going around the people and decide through parliaments (where the fix was in) rather than by plebiscite. Only the Irish insisted on a vote of the people before turning over sovereign power to Brussels bureaucrats. And they voted it down 53 percent-47 percent against the loud voices of all the political parties and national leaders – God Bless the Irish people.
Almost the entire business, political and cultural elite of Europe argue for centralizing EU power in Brussels because it will be good for business (and give Europe a more coherent voice and action in the world). The price for that is to reduce the role of democratically elected government officials – and to give more power to unelected governing forces.
Is that why partisans risked their lives sniping at Nazi soldiers and throwing homemade bombs at German Panzer tanks a mere half-century ago? Is the world getting ready to give up its birth-right to self-government for a mess of pottage?
NY Post Editors on Sharpton’s shakedowns.
Hey, that Al Sharpton is a regular Warren Buffett, isn’t he?
Fortune 500 companies can’t wait to hear what he has to tell them. And they’re falling all over themselves for the privilege of paying for his sage advice.
That’s Sharpton’s story, anyway.
But could there be another reason?
As The Post’s Isabel Vincent and Susan Edelman reported Sunday, nearly 50 of the nation’s biggest corporate names have been paying Sharpton and/or his National Action Network for years – some into the serious six figures.
Now, maybe some of those corporate giants actually agree with New York City Schools Chancellor Joel Klein that Sharpton is a major “civil-rights champion.”
But a lot of those payments seem to follow right on the heels of Sharpton’s threats to boycott the companies in question over allegations of “racism.” …
Bernard Goldberg says Russert was concerned about media bias.
… Knowing politics as well as he did was part of it, for sure. But a lot of people in Washington know politics. Asking probing questions was part of it, too. But again, Tim didn’t have a patent on tough questions. And it wasn’t just that (unlike too many others) he was fair to both sides. No, what made Tim Russert different, and better, I think was his willingness to listen to — and take seriously — criticism about his own profession. He was willing, for example, to keep an open mind about a hot-button issue like media bias — an issue that so many of his colleagues dismiss as the delusions of right-wing media haters. (Trust me on this one, I worked at CBS News for 28 years and know Dan Rather personally.)
In 2001, my first book, “Bias,” came out. It was an insider’s look at bias in the media. Not one network news correspondent would have anything to do with me. I couldn’t get on any of their morning news shows to talk about the book (which was a national best seller), or their evening shows or their weekend shows or even their middle-of-the-night news shows. No one in network television wanted to discuss the issue, no matter how many Middle Americans thought it was important.
Russert was the lone exception. …
Thomas Sowell liked Russert too.
… A small personal note: A few months ago, an old friend said that he would like to get a videotape of my interview on Meet the Press back in 1981. I dug up an old videotape in my garage but, after several summers in a hot garage, it was not in very good shape.
As a long shot, I decided to write to Meet the Press, to see if they would sell me another copy of the interview, if it was still available.
This interview took place back in the days when Bill Monroe was the program’s moderator. But, since the only name I knew of at Meet the Press was Tim Russert, I addressed a note to him, figuring that one of his secretaries might get back to me with the information.
Instead, I received a DVD of that interview and a brief, handwritten note from Tim Russert, with a transcript of the interview thrown in.
How people treat those who cannot do them any good or any harm reveals a lot about their character. For me, Tim Russert scored high in that department as well.
Nose on Your Face is back with more adventures of Obamessiah.