How true!

H/T to: Day By Day.

Laugh, and the world laughs at you!

Laugh...





...and the world laughs at you. (Warning: Turkish alert!)



Even as this incident has been extensively reviewed, methinks that too much effort is made in explanation while ignoring the fact that - even if we accept the prevailing meme that the Turkish anchor was attempting to show respect while asking for assistance from the Obama administration - this is the first time of which we are aware that a Turk donned blackface in order to "ask a favor" of an American president.

Whatever. The point is not that culturally "insensitive" (this word is my nominee for most Orwellian double-speak) people exist in other countries; as much has always been the case. But when it is painfully obvious that a leader of a democracy is willing to denigrate and disrespect his own people and their plight in order to increase his own standing, it will be hard for that leader to gin up respect from the rest of the world. As discussed elsewhere, for as much as Barack Obama may be appreciated throughout the world's capitols (as opposed to the U.S., where he has become a polarizing figure), his global poll numbers have not translated into tangible support for his policies, a point that was made recently by Charles Krauthammer. After Obama's "America Sucks" tour through Europe, all he has to show for his effort is the thinly disguised disdain of the world.

Cloward-Piven

As the Obama administration's agenda continues to unfold, Americans are now forced to confront the issue of whether Barack Obama's presidency represents a departure from our traditions of free-market capitalism, individual freedom (and accountability) and social modesty. As we bear witness to the socialization of formerly private enterprises and the looming collectivization of education and health care, we might be forgiven for asking whether Obama is serving as a Trojan Horse for radical elements whose agenda could not otherwise be implemented save for the current economic crisis. Now more than ever, it is appropriate to at least examine the basis for such an opinion.

Presented as food for thought, I submit several items for your review. By way of recapitulation for some, the video below provides a good overview of the Cloward-Piven Strategy (named for the late Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven), which intended to force social change by way of mobilizing the poor, as discussed more extensively here. For additional background on Cloward-Piven, please review an op-ed by Robert Chandler from the Washington Times.



I also encourage a review a widely-circulated American Thinker article by James Simpson, which makes the case that the current economic downturn was in fact caused by Democrats in order to provide for the election of a Democratic president, as well as to allow for the successful implementation of their collectivist agenda.

Taken separately, each piece suggests that there is great potential for the implementation of Cloward-Piven. Reviewed in toto, a dark picture of America's future emerges. Consider that fact that even five months ago, it would have been impossible to conceive of an American president summarily firing the CEO of a private corporation. Doubtless, no one would ever have thought that executives from another private entity could be forced to give back bonuses that were promised as a condition of employment (and were codified in Federal law), or else have them subject to a 90 percent tax rate.

It is my sense that our Community Organizer-In Chief is well on his way to establishing Cloward-Piven as the law of the land. If this does not frighten you, consider the plight of the African American underclass, the primary tool for executing this strategy. As a whole, the black underclass lives in conditions that are in many ways worse than when the Civil Rights Movement began. Today, upwards of 75 percent of all black children are born out of wedlock, high school graduation rates in many inner-city schools are as low as 30 percent and violence is endemic throughout black communities across the country. There is absolutely no reason to believe that these conditions will not become more widespread with the wholesale adoption of Cloward-Piven.

A Fleeting Glory

For over a thousand years Roman conquerors returning from the wars enjoyed the honor of triumph, a tumultuous parade. In the procession came trumpeteers, musicians and strange animals from conquered territories, together with carts laden with treasure and captured armaments. The conquerors rode in a triumphal chariot, the dazed prisoners walking in chains before him. Sometimes his children robed in white stood with him in the chariot or rode the trace horses. A slave stood behind the conqueror holding a golden crown and whispering in his ear a warning: that all glory is fleeting.

The wisdom of General George Patton's observation is becoming all the more apparent as we observe present events. A poll-obsessed media has created a new meme for its broadcasts: they seek to promote the idea that Barack Obama maintains the unshakable faith of the American people. To be sure, if you have watched more than five minutes of any news program recently, you quickly got to the part where the anchor happily chirps something to the effect of, "Despite the bad economy, Barack Obama's popularity remains high, with a majority of Americans believing that he is doing a good job."

While that largely remains the case, sources as diverse as Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, Rasmussen Reports and the Pew Research Center put the notion that all is well with Obama's polling numbers to lie. Of particular interest are data from Rasmussen which show that while the President has a 56 percent approval rating, the gap between those who "Strongly Approve" (37 percent) and those who "Strongly Disapprove" (32 percent) is at its narrowest point since the inauguration, separated by a mere five percentage points. It is also interesting to note that during March, Obama's approval has ranged from 60 percent to 56 percent, while in January it ranged from 60 to 65 percent.

For its part, the Pew data are nearly as damning. In their survey of over 1,300 adults, Pew found that Obama's approval rating has slipped from 64 percent in February to 59 percent at present, "as a growing number of Americans see him listening more to his party’s liberals than to its moderates and many voice opposition to some of his key economic proposals." During the same period, Obama's disapproval number has gone from 17 percent to 26 percent.

What many would find curious is the fact that - according to a WSJ op-ed co-written by pollster Scott Rasmussen and former Clinton pollster Douglas E. Schoen - Obama's numbers are in decline and he is in fact "below where George W. Bush was in an analogous period in 2001." (I do not find it surprising that most of the chirpy network anchors fail to mention this fact while crowing about Obama's popularity.) To their credit, Schoen and Rasmussen go into some detail as to what is behind the precipitous declines in Obama's numbers.

Overall, Rasmussen Reports shows a 56%-43% approval, with a third strongly disapproving of the president's performance. This is a substantial degree of polarization so early in the administration. Mr. Obama has lost virtually all of his Republican support and a good part of his Independent support, and the trend is decidedly negative.

A detailed examination of presidential popularity after 50 days on the job similarly demonstrates a substantial drop in presidential approval relative to other elected presidents in the 20th and 21st centuries. The reason for this decline most likely has to do with doubts about the administration's policies and their impact on peoples' lives.

There is also a clear sense in the polling that taxes will increase for all Americans because of the stimulus, notwithstanding what the president has said about taxes going down for 95% of Americans. Close to three-quarters expect that government spending will grow under this administration.

The concerns expressed by those included in Rasmussen's polling run parallel to those cited in other places. Doubtless, there is considerable angst about the economy, with Rasmussen and Schoen citing Gallup polling to the effect that "[s]eventy-eight percent are worried about inflation growing, and 69% say they are worried about the increasing role of the government in the U.S. economy."

So while the "Mighty Casey" Obama has not struck out entirely with the public, there is distress in Mudville.

And, by Hermene Hartman's lights, "[a]ll is not well in River City."

For those unfamiliar with Hermene Hartman and her relevance to Obama's popularity, I'll drop a few clues. Ms. Hartman is the publisher of one of the most widely read weekly newspapers in Chicago's black community. N'DIGO boasts the nation's largest African American newspaper circulation, so it goes without saying that Ms. Hartman holds considerable sway over the black community's thinking. That said, when N'DIGO prints a Publisher's Page article pointing out Obama's slights towards his most loyal constituency, it's a big deal.

In the black community, there is much discussion about President Obama's performance and commitment. It is an honest discussion. On his campaign trail, we saw the civil rights people ignored; we saw ministers disregarded; and we saw [talk show host] Tavis Smiley exiled for raising the question about the absence of a black agenda from the Obama platform.

President Obama represents black America's proudest moment and America's "Aha!" moment. His ratings are high and he still appears to be on the campaign trail with daily major announcements. Recent ratings show he out-polled Jesus! Wait a minute, everybody. Jesus he is not.

Constructive criticisms bear airing. There is only one black cabinet member. Black press has been totally disregarded and black press received little to no advertising from the campaign coffers.

Beyond her own commentary, when Hartman cites a letter written by a prominent African American professor - Steven Rogers of Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management - that raises concerns that Obama has demonstrated through "actions, snubs, insults and inactions [sic] that President Obama has no plans to do anything special... to help black businesses or the general black community as a whole," it's clear that something is amiss. (Rogers was similarly skeptical of the Obama administration during a recent conference sponsored by Kellogg.)

As stated elsewhere, it was my sense some time ago "that those who are in for the rudest awakening [vis-a-vis the Obama presidency] will be African Americans." There is already a palpable dissatisfaction among what Hartman describes as "the earliest and most faithful Obama supporters." It is now clear that the sentiments expressed in Professor Rogers' letter have gained currency among these African American strivers. To say that Barack Obama is in an awkward position relative to the black community is to understate the problem. While he remains a powerful symbol for all Americans, particularly but certainly not exclusively blacks, Obama will be held to a lofty standard by his African American constituents; Hartman phrases it as blacks expecting "fulfillment."

Far be it from me to kick a woman when she is down, but the "fulfillment" that Ms. Hartman is expecting from Obama will never come. The "closure in the gaps - education, employment, housing and business" for which she devoutly wishes will never come from the actions of any one man, particularly a man as meagerly gifted in anything beyond speechmaking (and fake indignation.) It appears that Ms. Hartman and the "Day One" people are learning the same bitter lesson about this man that Americans of all races and walks of life are learning. Namely, that while candidates are as good as their last promise, presidents are only as good as their accomplishments. And as that lesson is being appreciated, Obama's poll numbers decline accordingly.

Titular Heads

When I awoke yesterday and contemplated how I would spend a end-of-winter Saturday, I had no idea that a pair of speeches from two dissimilar events would each on their own put a choke hold on my ever-diminishing attention span, and in juxtaposition would create enough heat to turn winter into summer. On the one hand, representing the new "post-Reagan" Republican Party - fresh from its "hip-hop makeover" - comes newly-installed Republican National Committee Chair Michael Steele.



During his remarks to Tavis Smiley's 10th annual State of the Black Union (SOBU), Steele began by issuing a meandering and entirely unnecessary mea culpa for supposed GOP transgressions (a la former RNC Chair Ken Mehlman.) In addressing the African American community's transition from voting Republican to being in lockstep (make that goosestep) with Democrats, Steele spoke thusly:

During... that last 60 or 70 years of history, the Republican Party effectively walked away from the [black] community. They were afraid to really embrace civil rights, even though they embraced civil rights legislation... A lot of folks over the years walked away.. to employ what was basically a Southern Strategy."

Like Mehlman before him, Steele bears a political mark of Ham, a stain upon his conscience that is most visible when in the presence of light reflected from the faces of eternally-indignant African Americans, as best evidenced by Steele later condemning the New York Post's "Chimpgate" as "a stupid, ignorant cartoon."

Of course, as discussed elsewhere, it is hardly the GOP that needs to apologize to black America for anything; if an apology were necessary, it would be a bystander's expression of regret for standing idly by while Democrats pimp-slap the black community with no pity or remorse. To be sure, Steele absolutely needed to be at SOBU. But Steele and the party are best served when he comes not as an apologist for imaginary sins of Republicans but rather as an evangelist for the conservative agenda.

At the other extreme, we contemplate observations made yesterday by Rush Limbaugh to the Conservative Political Action Conference.



Where Chairman Steele was in a defensive crouch, Limbaugh was clearly on offense. As is his wont, Limbaugh made the case for conservatism by demonstrating where the Left and liberalism have failed their adherents, and by recalling the successes of conservatism - especially under its most consistent practitioner in recent times, Ronald Reagan.

Limbaugh dismissed out of hand the notion that the conservative movement needed any sort of retooling, asking instead whether freedom and "little-d" democracy needed to be retooled or reimagined. Standing in front of an American flag mural, Limbaugh looked quite like the George S. Patton of conservatism. In his iteration, Steele came across as his party's George McClellan, very much willing to wear a soldier's uniform, but also very unwilling to fight a soldier's fight.

As 18 years of real-world sales experience have taught me, if you can't differentiate it, you can't sell it. If Steele hopes to sell the GOP and conservatism more generally, he will need to abandon such bogusness as "hip-hop makeovers" and sharpen his elbows just a touch (or at least sharpen the distinctions between us and them.) At this point, I will confess that I consider providing guidance to Chairman Steele to be as useless as attempting to drain the ocean with a thimble; Steele has always struck me as being what a Texan would describe as "all hat and no cattle."

Before and since his stint as Maryland's Lieutenant-governor, he seemed to wander aimlessly from pillar to post. His time as the Chair of GOPAC was singularly unremarkable, and he was certainly not a slam dunk for his current post, having won only after six rounds of voting (and the withdrawal of three of his opponents.) Given the current social and political climates, if the GOP needs a black face for pomp and ceremony, then Steele may yet fill the bill. But as Democrats from Barack Obama on down are doubtless aware, it is Limbaugh who energizes conservatism's heart.

The End of [Black] History

Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards. Though race related issues continue to occupy a significant portion of our political discussion, and though there remain many unresolved racial issues in this nation, we, average Americans, simply do not talk enough with each other about race. It is an issue we have never been at ease with and given our nation's history this is in some ways understandable. And yet, if we are to make progress in this area we must feel comfortable enough with one another, and tolerant enough of each other, to have frank conversations about the racial matters that continue to divide us.

And so strode Eric Holder, America's first black Attorney General, to the head of the column of "mau-mauing" sacks of excrement that so populate the modern civil rights (or more correctly, "civil wrongs") movement. It is beyond ironic that Holder chose this time, a moment in which - black "acceptability" for lack of a better word - within American society is at its zenith (as most perfectly evidenced by the otherwise improbable sequence of events that allowed for his nomination), to press the case that Americans are cowards vis-a-vis race.

If, as Holder avers, there are certain subjects related to race that are "off limits, and that to explore them risks, at best embarrassment, and, at worst, the questioning of one's character," one must ask how such became the case, for whites surely did not always have such proscriptions. The primrose path that led us to our current muteness passes inexorably through the garden of liberal political correctness. As every non-black knows instinctively, to mention, let alone raise an honest question about out-of-wedlock birth rates and fatherless homes among African Americans, the epidemic of violence among black youth, skyrocketing rates of HIV and other STDs or the nihilism so evident in much of black culture is indeed to risk "the questioning of one's character."

But again, why is this so? If Holder wants "frank conversations about the racial matters that continue to divide us," a good start would be for everyone to acknowledge that there are problems not to be addressed by yet another cycle of jawboning. Nevertheless, Holder insists that we yammer away, or more precisely, that blacks do the yammering. For the race "discussion" that Holder pretends to encourage is in fact a one-sided rant, a diatribe designed to convey indignation for the purpose of securing the power of racial innocence. Non-blacks know this all too well; rather than needing a "basic understanding of one another," whites evidently understand all that they need to know about relations with blacks. They go to any expedient to avoid the "racist" label so that they are then free to live their lives thinking little else about the subject.

Just as important, if Holder's race conversation is worth having at all, why should it be during Black History Month as he proposes? If Hispanics are already the largest minority and the greatest source of our ethnic diversity, why shouldn't we bypass the stale and stilted white-black dynamic altogether that we might discuss issues of race arising between North, Central and South America? That answer is self-evident: for liberals, the ever-shrinking social divide between white and black is to be fetishised. It is the bloody shirt that progressives wave with abandon to suggest that America's "racial present" and future will be as tainted as its past without our acceding to their demands.

But as you wish, Mr. Holder. If you insist, I will concede that we are a indeed a nation of cowards on the matter of race. We show our yellow streak in not stating plainly, for example, that the only racists as it pertains to the New York Post's chimp cartoon are those who are quick to make the association between the country's Chief Executive - who does not himself write legislation - and the primate in question, which by all indications could have very well written the recently passed stimulus bill.

Even as I give Holder and his ilk credit for steadfastness, he and I will both readily acknowledge that facts are also stubborn things. In his current capacity, Mr. Holder may come to share my fascination with FBI crime statistics. However the 2007 data are sliced, whether one looks at arrests for violent crimes in general, by cities versus suburban areas, or by metropolitan counties versus non-metropolitan counties, African Americans are overrepresented relative to both their percentage of the population and to their percentage of arrests in murder and non-negligent manslaughter.

And, thanks to the auspices of Holder's Justice Department, America's race cowards on the Left will need to confess that the topic most worthy of discussion - present-day threats to black life - come not from whites who fall silent on race, but from other blacks. Of the 3,221 murders of African Americans reported to the FBI for 2007, over 90 percent (2,905) were committed by a black assailant. I will understand if Mr. Holder did not get to peruse the latest crime data prior to making his speech last week; I'm sure he has been preoccupied with figuring out which foreign terrorist organization should next be pardoned. At some point however, he will need to explain to all of us race chickenshits how another round of black umbrage and white acquiescence will save the life of another black child.

Of Frogs and (Black) Men

I had the singular misfortune of spending some leisure time with an inebriated Frenchman while in Chicago on business last week. As I had imbibed during the evening, I tried not to be too judgmental about his slurred speech and obvious disregard for personal space. Beyond his halitosis (and the occasional blast of spittle), it was his conversation that gave me considerable pause.

Even through his liquored haze, he was able to see the obvious. Making note of the fact that I was indeed of African descent, he shared with me his newfound allegiance to the African diaspora, stating that he felt closer to black Americans than he did to his fellow white Frenchmen. And in the advent of America's first black president, he declared "Africa is now in the lead!" Not content to leave bad enough alone, he plaintively added, "Please don't screw up!"

I should not have been surprised that the Gaul was able to transpose the fortune of a single (biracial) President-elect with that of an entire continent, or that he could interpose his life with the lives of people from cultures that he has doubtless taken no great pains to appreciate. For to be sure, on at least one occasion, the French have displayed a remarkable gift for tactical substitution. To a descendant of a nation gave the world a new phrase signifying duplicitous betrayal, Vichy French - a people who saw themselves as one with their Nazi occupiers - it would be small potatoes to see himself as one with all Africans, and me as interchangeable with Barack Obama.

The other thing that does not surprise, given the aforementioned Gallic penchant for duplicity, is the fact that France itself has a considerable distance to go before it is in a position to elect its own black president. According to reporting from the Associated Press, France is tied with Austria for for last place in the percentage of minorities holding parliament seats (0.5%). For its part, France also has only one black parliamentarian among 555 elected members of its lower house.

Part of the reason for this may be revealed by an AP quote from Jose Spencer, a native of Guinea-Bissau who has lived in France for 33 years.

"French people are more racist than the Americans because I know America well. I've been there several times, I've seen how people are there. It is different than here."

It is difficult to compare the relative level of racism between two cultures with divergent histories vis-a-vis the matter of race. But it's also difficult to imagine a nation that favored the election of Obama by outsized margins would have an especially difficult time reconciling its leftist leanings and stated egalitarian traditions with its present difficulties in assimilating racial minorities (as evidenced by the rioting that kept the exburbs of Paris ablaze a few years back.) Of course, such is of a piece with the struggle that the American Left has in dealing with the glaring disharmony between its rhetoric and its record on race.

Like so many American liberals, the frogs espouse their support for affirmative action-type programs to "make amends" for their own legacy of discrimination. And like their progressive brethren across the pond, the French Left is quite prepared to use the strong arm of the law to make its will manifest. What neither French nor American liberals seem willing to do is to create both an equality of both opportunity and of expectation for all citizens, irrespective of race. Instead, the American Left assumes that equality of outcomes is a suitable proxy for that of opportunity, while French liberals pretend that there is no race problem to be dealt with in the first place.

In retrospect, perhaps I should not be so hard on my acquaintance, as dealing with such dissonance-inducing contradictions would drive any man to drink.

On Asses and Carts

Every once in a great while, the intuitively obvious answer is the correct one. For example, if you took two schoolchildren from the same race, and stipulated that one came from a home where the parents' educational attainment and household income were less than that of the other, you would predict that the child of the ill-starred family would have lower educational outcomes that his more fortunate peer.

We also assume that factors such as a stable home environment, minimal exposure to television and having a two-parent family can impact a student's educational outcomes. Furthermore, we can rightly presume that all of these things would impact cross-racial comparisons, particularly between African Americans and whites. And indeed, we see evidence of race-based educational disparities as evidenced by the much-vaunted "achievement gap."

It's a good thing (he says tongue grafted to cheek) that Rev. Al Sharpton has distracted himself from other matters such that he can turn his attention to the education of black pupils. Predictably, Rev. Sharpton has directed his preponderance to advocate for the one thing that has been repeatedly demonstrated to have zero impact on school performance: namely, per-pupil spending (PPS). Over the weekend, Sharpton added his voice to those calling for a boycott of Chicago public schools on the first day of class next month.

Sharpton's fulminations aside, PPS has exactly no bearing on children's school performance (as discussed ad infinitum elsewhere.) Even the definition thereof is sufficiently nebulous as to account for funding of activities that are well upstream of what goes on in the classroom. Everything from plush retirements for bootlicking bureaucrats to "educational" seminars for administrative pogues to filling the hog troughs of teacher's unions with the swill of new property tax dollars can be accounted for as per-pupil spending.

And as mentioned elsewhere, if PPS had a direct impact on education, we would see evidence of improvements in academic achievement.

While not entirely surprising, the most disturbing fact is that these sorts of abysmal performance outcomes come with an exorbitant cost. According to data from the website of the Institute of Education Sciences (IES), over a relatively brief timescale - 1961 to 2003, to be precise - expenditures per pupil for primary and secondary education have more than tripled, from $2,507 to $8,468 in 2004-05 dollars. And according to the IES' Common Core of Data, for the 2004-05 fiscal year, per student expenditures ranged from $14,117 for students in New Jersey to $5,216 for Utah students, with absolutely no correlation between per pupil spending and educational outcomes.

Everywhere we look - from the Abbott districts in New Jersey, to the hardscrabble streets of South Central Los Angeles to the killing fields of Chicago - we have seen no return whatever for this level of investment in education.

I've also noted that what besets African Americans vis-a-vis education is only minimally about economics, and reflects more of a poverty of culture rather than material goods. (So as not to seem to self-obsessed, I am loathe to reference posts to that effect.) In reviewing the situation here in Chicago, a fellow blogger cites a Schott Foundation for Public Education study, and concludes that "African American males in Chicago's public schools are less than half as likely to graduate as their white peers." Dennis Byrne surmises that culture - particularly that embraced by young black males - is the predominant factor contributing to any observed gaps in achievement between the races.

[I]f resource inequities account for the poor performance, why don't their white male, Hispanic and black female counterparts do as badly? After all, they are going to the same public schools in Chicago... Is it part of the state funding formula to somehow apportion less funding to black males? Are black males forced to use 20-year-old textbooks, while everyone else gets new ones? What precisely is there about how money is spent that mainly leaves black males so dismally out of it?

Maybe a complex of factors, other than funding disparities, explains the troubling performance of black males, and thus, a large part of the schools' problems. Perhaps the same thing that accounts for the decay of neighborhoods at the hands of black male gangs, or for the absence of fathers in the unraveling African-American family. These are symptoms of a cultural climate—corrupted by loosening morals, radical individualism, materialism, Hollywood's adulation of violence and parental irresponsibility, among other strands—that converges on African-American males in particular with all the focused and destructive force of a tornado... What is needed is not so much a change in the school funding formula, but a fundamental change in attitudes about family and society.

Even as Al Sharpton and his confederates bray for more money for their student constituents, it is curious that they never specify a dollar amount that would bring black students up to par academically with whites and Asians. The cry is always for more, with PPS serving as the perfect bogeyman to explain black underachievement. More accurately, it is a tool with which to deflect attention away from the singular shame of African Americans. As long as other races outperform blacks academically, our innate equality remains an open question. In a convoluted sort of way, Sharpton is performing a service of sorts as a champion of the idea of black intellectualism. But his "good" intentions do not make up for the fact that the cart remains before the donkey.

Comfortably Numb

It's a bit hard to believe how much consternation can be generated by a single image on the cover of a relatively obscure magazine. I suspect that most people who are concerned with "Covergate" reacted more to the image itself, and were largely unfamiliar with The New Yorker. For their part, the editorial staff of the magazine submits that they were attempting to satirize the "misinformation" surrounding Barack Obama's candidacy (nearly all of which was generated by surrogates of Hillary Clinton.)

While liberals are exercised over the New Yorker cover, Republicans are inured to this sort of leftist nastiness; conservatives take the brunt of abuse from progressives on a near-hourly basis. Moreover, we have borne witness to the scurrilous rantings of prominent Democrats directed towards Obama. Who can forget the comments of Bill Shaheen, Geraldine Ferraro, Hillary ("Spadework") and Bill ("Fairy Tale") Clinton, Ralph Nader, Andrew Young and Bob Johnson, among others?

Indeed, now is the campaign silly season when Democrats go into their circular firing squad formation, taking potshots at each other. But in this election cycle, the fratricide seemed to start earlier (see here and here) and threatens to continue right up to the DNC Convention (see the PUMA phenomenon.) The precipitating factor for all of this is Obama himself. The MSM's fawning notwithstanding, Obama will not inspire the type of celluloid hagiography that occasioned the Kerry-Edwards debacle; he simply has no story to tell.

Both elected and rank-and-file Democrats look at Obama and say to themselves "Why him?" And it is his seeming lack of what MSM-types describe as "gravitas" (such as when they openly questioned whether George W. Bush had it) that makes Obama ripe for satire. Sure, he is smooth and charismatic (and "articulate" and "clean"), but he is also double-minded. This was no more apparent than during Obama's remarks to to this week's 99th NAACP Convention.

So yes, we have to demand more responsibility from Washington. And yes we have to demand more responsibility from Wall Street. But we also have to demand more from ourselves. Now, I know some say I've been too tough on folks about this responsibility stuff. But I'm not going to stop talking about it. Because I believe that in the end, it doesn't matter how much money we invest in our communities, or how many 10-point plans we propose, or how many government programs we launch - none of it will make any difference if we don't seize more responsibility in our own lives.

That's how we'll truly honor those who came before us. Because I know that Thurgood Marshall did not argue Brown versus Board of Education so that some of us could stop doing our jobs as parents. And I know that nine little children did not walk through a schoolhouse door in Little Rock so that we could stand by and let our children drop out of school and turn to gangs for the support they are not getting elsewhere. That's not the freedom they fought so hard to achieve. That's not the America they gave so much to build. That's not the dream they had for our children.

That's why if we're serious about reclaiming that dream, we have to do more in our own lives, our own families, and our own communities. That starts with providing the guidance our children need, turning off the TV, and putting away the video games; attending those parent-teacher conferences, helping our children with their homework, and setting a good example. It starts with teaching our daughters to never allow images on television to tell them what they are worth; and teaching our sons to treat women with respect, and to realize that responsibility does not end at conception; that what makes them men is not the ability to have a child but the courage to raise one. It starts by being good neighbors and good citizens who are willing to volunteer in our communities - and to help our synagogues and churches and community centers feed the hungry and care for the elderly. We all have to do our part to lift up this country.

Apparently the conservative message of personal responsibility is good enough for African Americans, but not so for whites. Obama almost never chides white homeowners facing foreclosure for taking out risky mortgages, or young white males for staying in low-skill, easily exportable occupations. The self-evident doublespeak understandably rankles even the most die-hard liberals. (See the Fox News Channel interview on "N-wordgate" here.)

In any event, is is crystal clear that Barack Obama's biggest political challenge is not whether people think that he is Muslim or that he and his wife give each other "terrorist fist bumps", but rather an arrogance that outstrips any demonstrated competence. Obama is presumptuous enough to believe that African Americans will vote for him no matter what he says, and that he need only appeal to (young) whites. The black community has again found itself in a position to which it has become accustomed - in possession of a freshly-renewed "chump certificate" courtesy of the Democratic Party. Sadly, conservatives are as well accustomed to witnessing that sort of thing.

Nuts to You

Having been burned by both black and white preachers, Sen. Barack Obama must be searching his now-swollen Rolodex for the name of a Buddhist monk or a Native American shaman to associate with. While at what became an "open mic night" during a taping of "Fox and Friends", Rev. Jesse Jackson expressed his desire to turn Obama into a eunuch (as seen on yesterday's Fox News Channel's "The O'Reilly Factor".)

Jackson's ire was raised by comments Obama made in regard to faith-based charities receiving government funds, and by extension (at least according to CNN), Obama's recent speeches to parishioners at black churches on the need for African American fathers to assume more responsibility for their children. As Jackson explained to CNN's "Situation Room", "I was in a conversation with a fellow guest on Sunday. He asked about Barack's speeches lately at the black churches. I said he comes down as speaking down to black people."

And here is where we see the mental gymnastics that have sustained Jesse Jackson's career lo these many years. By suggesting that black men see themselves as fully-formed human beings having moral capacities and responsibilities - as opposed to Jackson's formulation which posits that everything that ails African Americans is entirely a result of material deficits - it is Obama who is condescending to blacks.

The irony is furthered by Jackson - ostensibly a man of the cloth - displaying the barrenness of his own moral landscape by suggesting castration as the preferred means of resolving his disagreement with Obama. We see again that the prophetic wind blows in only one direction, that is away from accountability for the behavior of the so-called prophets.

The idea that African Americans should not be held responsible as moral actors is surely not novel. It is as least as old as the countercultural Left itself. And all that besets the black community presently are as branches of the tree of moral infantilism. By continuing to propose that African Americans are plagued by problems of a material nature that can be solved by a government-enforced redistribution of resources, Jackson is as savage an oppressor as the black community has ever endured.

Martin Luther King, Jr (1929-1968)

"I left Atlanta this morning, and as we got started on the plane, there were six of us. The pilot said over the public address system, 'We are sorry for the delay, but we have Dr. Martin Luther King on the plane. And to be sure that all of the bags were checked, and to be sure that nothing would be wrong with on the plane, we had to check out everything carefully. And we've had the plane protected and guarded all night.'

"And then I got into Memphis. And some began to say the threats, or talk about the threats that were out. What would happen to me from some of our sick white brothers?

"Well, I don't know what will happen now. We've got some difficult days ahead. But it really doesn't matter with me now, because I've been to the mountaintop.

"And I don't mind. Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I'm not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over. And I've seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land!

"And so I'm happy, tonight. I'm not worried about anything. I'm not fearing any man! Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord!!"

Requiescat in pace.

Stop Making Sense

Maybe this is all a manifestation of some April Fool's phenomenon (or just as likely, a case of newborn-induced sleep deprivation.) As of late there appear to be an increasing number of circumstances that occur beyond my abilities of comprehension. In particular, politics provides a smorgasbord of peculiar events that try both my patience and credulity.

I - much like Jackie Mason - strain to understand how a U.S. Senator and presidential candidate can sit under the pulpit of a pastor such as Rev. Jeremiah Wright for 20 years, and hear nothing so controversial as to cause him a moment's hesitation about claiming Wright as a spiritual mentor. (Hell, I attended Wright's church for less than two years and heard comments at least as inflammatory as those keeping YouTube ablaze virtually every Sunday; to paraphrase Mr. Mason, Barack Obama would have to be deaf or stupid not to have noticed similar commentary.)

I am also vexed as to how another Democratic presidential candidate would highlight her management skills to commend her as POTUS, even as she runs her campaign over a cliff. Hillary Clinton has made her expertise - in developing a feasible universal health care plan among other things - a centerpiece of her political resume, all the while her incompetent stewardship of the campaign's finances has caused her to be unable to pay health care premiums for staffers.

But these are yet trifles, mere hors d'oeuvres in the feast of foolishness. Much that bewilders my now baby-besotted mind emanates from beyond the ramparts of politics. My attention was captured by a fairly recent New York Times Magazine article about so-called "transmen" attending women's colleges. We are acquainted with "Rey," a scion(?) of an affluent New York suburb and a not-quite transgendered college student. Rey began his college years at Barnard, a women's college in New York City. His travails with the "very typical feminine girls" (i.e., female students not wanting to share housekeeping with a tranny), left him feeling "extremely other." After these assaults on his sensibilities, Rey now continues "hir" studies at Columbia.

Around the next corner in the gender bender House of Horrors is Thomas Beatie, who comes to us by way of The Advocate. To make a weird story short, Beatie is "transgendered, legally male, and legally married to Nancy." Beatie has also retained his, shall we say, pre-surgery "plumbing." Due to his wife's inability to conceive, Beatie has decided to put his original equipment to use. As we might imagine, the couple has endured all sorts of indignities as Beatie has attempted to conceive and carry their child.

Our situation sparks legal, political, and social unknowns. We have only begun experiencing opposition from people who are upset by our situation. Doctors have discriminated against us, turning us away due to their religious beliefs. Health care professionals have refused to call me by a male pronoun or recognize Nancy as my wife. Receptionists have laughed at us. Friends and family have been unsupportive...

This whole process, from trying to get pregnant to being pregnant, has been a challenge for us. The first doctor we approached was a reproductive endocrinologist. He was shocked by our situation and told me to shave my facial hair. After a $300 consultation, he reluctantly performed my initial checkups. He then required us to see the clinic's psychologist to see if we were fit to bring a child into this world and consulted with the ethics board of his hospital. A few months and a couple thousand dollars later, he told us that he would no longer treat us, saying he and his staff felt uncomfortable working with "someone like me."

Like Rey, Beatie seems genuinely upset that others won't go along with his delusion. Despite his having apparently functional female reproductive organs, Beatie describes himself as being "stable and confident being the man that I am."

As I come at all of this from the perspective of an African American male - my own gender best described by the equally correct and politically incorrect epithet, "mansman" - I find it interesting that many people (especially on the Left) accept a fluidity of gender that speaks to a penchant for pushing envelopes as opposed to drawing clear lines. I also wonder why race was never seen as so much of a sociological construct as opposed to a biological fact. Imagine if, by dint of a change in physiognomy, the power of will or some other expedient, blacks could have avoided the whole host of privations of days long past.

The truth of course is that while Americans of African descent may choose not to identify with their negritude, they cannot force society into accepting any alternate designation. (If anything, those with multiracial bona fides are likely to have blackness draped over them, fitting much like a wet jacket.) So it is with these misguided drag kings. Their attempts to mau-mau us into a stunned submission notwithstanding, their biology - the presence of distinctly female physiology, and the requirement of endocrine reinforcement of their gender "reassignment" - speaks volumes to the untenability of their suggestion that they are men, trans or otherwise.

For Once And For All

When Democrats get their hands too chapped from self-congratulatory backslapping (or mutual onanism), they occupy their minds by weaving tall tales about Republicans. The prohibitive favorite among these fables is the one which ends with white Southerners defecting from the Democratic Party to the GOP upon the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

So deeply has this fiction (and that of a Nixonian "Southern Strategy") saturated popular culture that a former RNC Chairman felt the need to apologize to African Americans for Republicans supposedly "trying to benefit politically from racial polarization." No such apology was ever necessary, and as the results of the 2006 mid-term elections illustrated, the sop towards blacks turned out to be both ill-advised and fruitless.

Ken Mehlman would have done better to remind Americans of all races of the true history of Republicans and Democrats vis-a-vis race. Among other things, the record would show that Democrats were the party of slavery, the KKK and Jim Crow, while the GOP was the party of abolition and Reconstruction.

Modern progressives parry these historical disgraces with their contention that it was liberals, irrespective of party affiliation, who freed the slaves, began the movement for women's suffrage, established labor unions, changed the course of mighty rivers, bent steel with their bare hands... The only problem with this plot line is that bespeaks a disregard for history that is singular to the Left.

Present-day notions of liberalism and conservatism would not have applied at any point prior to the 1930s, as most everyone at that time thought of themselves as a "liberal" in the classic sense (although they were likely far more "conservative" in tastes and demeanors than many of today's conservatives.) Arguments to the contrary become untenable when one considers that many of feminism's forebears considered blacks to be inferior to whites, as did pro-choice icon Margaret Sanger.

Even when Democrats begrudgingly acknowledge their party's racist past, the do so with the caveat that southerners moved almost as a unit from being Dixie-crats to being conservatives. While it is true that the South voted overwhelmingly for Barry Goldwater in 1964, relatively few white politicians moved from being Democrats to independents (as did Gov. George Wallace in 1968) or to the GOP (as was the case with Sens. Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond.)

With the salient exception of the 1968 election - southerners voted in lockstep with the rest of the nation during the first elections following passage of the Civil Rights Act, supporting Richard Nixon in his 1972 landslide and backing Jimmy Carter in 1976 (only to break to the GOP after the debacle that was the Carter presidency.) To be sure, racist whites did not leave either party en masse, but rather most of them changed their minds on the matter of race; just as Americans of both parties were fairly equally racist between Reconstruction and the Civil Rights Movement - distinguished only by the overtness of their prejudice - both parties are now generally less racist than in the past, as is the nation itself.

At present, the main difference between Republicans and Democrats is their degree of support for the apparatuses of institutionalized racism (which is of course the only type of bias that is of consequence today.) Whether one considers abysmal public schools that are merely waiting rooms for the penitentiary, disparaging media stereotypes of African Americans, out-of-wedlock births in the black community or unchecked violence in inner-city neighborhoods, it is the Left that either abets or fails to address each of these situations. But even when one considers racism in microcosm, it is so-called progressives - Geraldine Ferraro being but the latest example - who most frequently lay bare the ugliest sorts of bigotry.

Johnny comes lately

Perhaps the most underreported development of the 2008 presidential campaign is the continued fracturing of the Democratic Party. To be sure, Republicans are still somewhat divided between those who want to be right (e.g., the Rush Limbaugh-Laura Ingraham-Michelle Malkin-Ann Coulter wing) and those who want to win the election. But that split pales in comparison to the fault line between the titular "leaders" of the black community and the African American masses.

That such rift exists within one of the Left's most staunch constituencies has only recently been observed at all in the MSM, with none of the reporting providing the insights gained elsewhere. Earlier in the week, the New York Times seemed to acknowledge that the black establishment was being carried along by the undercurrent (or more correctly, tidal wave) of black support for Sen. Barack Obama, as opposed to the candidate of much of the black elite, Hillary Clinton.

With a precious few exceptions, the greater part of the African American leadership class - to include Reps. Maxine Waters, Sheila Jackson Lee and Charlie Rangel - began the primary season solidly in Ms. Clinton's corner. (The spitting irony of this is that while most of these lawmakers have their positions entirely because of naked appeals to racial "solidarity," they themselves have refused to display a similar unity in backing a viable black candidate.)

It appears now that since prominent white Democrats (i.e., labor unions such as the SEIU and UFCW, and as of late, Bill Clinton's former campaign manager David Wilhelm) have given the O.K. to break from Ms. Clinton's camp, certain black lawmakers are reconsidering their desire to remain on the Clinton plantation, as reported in the NYT.

In a fresh sign of trouble for Hillary Rodham Clinton, one of the former first lady's congressional black supporters intends to vote for Barack Obama at the Democratic National Convention, and a second, more prominent lawmaker is openly discussing a possible switch.

Rep. David Scott's defection and Rep. John Lewis' remarks highlight one of the challenges confronting Clinton in a campaign that pits a black man against a woman for a nomination that historically has been the exclusive property of white men.

''You've got to represent the wishes of your constituency,'' Scott said in an interview Wednesday in the Capitol. ''My proper position would be to vote the wishes of my constituents.'' The third-term lawmaker represents a district that gave more than 80 percent of its vote to Obama in the Feb. 5 Georgia primary.

Representing "the wishes of your constituency" seems to be the central dilemma for many African American Clinton supporters lately. Rep. Lewis' Georgia district went for Obama 3-1, and while Lewis has not yet provided any formal endorsement, it appears that the only issue is the timing of such an announcement.

In a manner reminiscent of Chris Rock, some black politicians are strong-arming their colleagues to support Obama. The NYT story goes on to cite a conversation between Reps. Jesse Jackson, Jr. and Democrat superdelegate Emanuel Cleaver in which Jackson asks Cleaver, "if it comes down to the last day and you're the only superdelegate? ... Do you want to go down in history as the one to prevent a black from winning the White House?" In confirming the conversation, Jackson went on to add, "[m]any of these guys have offered their support to Mrs. Clinton, but Obama has won their districts. So you wake up without the carpet under your feet. You might find some young primary challenger placing you in a difficult position.''

While we can make much of these developments, two things stick out for me as an African American. First, it is comforting to note that black voters are less likely to be swayed by black politicians (or black preachers, many of whom also fell under Hillary's thrall.) This suggests that blacks are becoming just a bit more judicious as to whom they lend their support. And while African Americans are likely to vote for Democrats in their usual lopsided numbers in 2008, this provides a small opening in the future for a GOP message that speaks to the hopes and aspirations of black Americans.

Secondly, the entire dialectic among black leaders over the appropriate role of race vis-a-vis supporting a presidential candidate speaks to the tribalized politics of progressives. It is clear that liberals see themselves as only members of "communities" and not part of a cohesive whole. (Such a political ethic is exactly what was wrong with the blind support Iowa evangelicals provided Gov. Mike Huckabee, as discussed elsewhere.)

Of course, this amalgamation of balkanized constituencies does not seem to include white males. Imagine if the conversation between Reps. Jackson and Cleaver played out in converse, with two white politicians discussing not going "down in history" as the one to prevent a white from winning a closely-contested race against a black. It remains unclear how such a deeply divided party can unite and lead an equally divided country to face the challenges of our time.

Apropos of nothing, the fact that the biggest newspapers in both Wisconsin and Texas are endorsing Obama probably means that we can put a fork in Clintonism.

Four More Years!

Mister Charlie and Miss Anne

Nearly fourteen years after he was a bystander to one of the 20th Century's worst acts of barbarism, Bill Clinton himself is now personally involved on his wife's behalf as the Hutus and Tutsis of his party engage in another of their periodic paroxysms of fratricide. The party of slavery, Jim Crow, "Dixie-crats" and the KKK (lest we forget that the only alumnus of the Klan presently serving in Congress, Sen. Robert Byrd, is a Democrat) is yet again riven over the issue of race.

To be sure, the fault lines that this internecine conflict have exposed will not soon be mended. The split runs deeper than the ill-advised commentary of Clinton or his many dusky surrogates, although he would be well advised to follow Rep. James Clyburn's admonition to "chill." His overheated rhetoric (along with Hillary's political tone-deafness) have done minimal damage to Sen. Barack Obama's candidacy, while wrecking havoc on her campaign, not to mention to his already tarnished legacy.

The greater fracture imperiling the Democrats' efforts to retake the White House is two-fold. There is clearly a fissure between whites - particularly blue-collar whites and white "ethnics" - and blacks. This is evidenced by recent polls in South Carolina and elsewhere suggesting that Obama has become the favored candidate of African Americans, garnering roughly 60 percent of the black vote, while Clinton remains the candidate of most whites. With Hillary having all but conceded the state, there is little doubt that her looming defeat in South Carolina (although I've been down this road before) will feed into any race-based paranoias held by certain white Democrat constituencies.

The interracial rift among progressives is paralleled by an intra-racial division among blacks. An account published in the Chicago Tribune describes this as a generational struggle between established black political leaders and a group of younger black politicians.

At Clinton's side have been not only [Rep. Charlie] Rangel and Johnson but civil rights standout Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) and former UN Ambassador Andrew Young, who in videotaped remarks to black Atlanta residents suggested Bill Clinton was "every bit as black as Barack."

Other established black political leaders whose careers have been steeped in the traditions of the civil rights movement and protest politics have been notably cool to Obama. Though Rev. Jesse Jackson has endorsed Obama, for example, Rev. Al Sharpton has stayed neutral.

Obama, meanwhile has drawn especially strong support from a new generation of rising black political stars such as Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, Newark, N.J., Mayor Corey Booker and Rep. Artur Davis (D-Ala.).

For its part, the Wall Street Journal may have gotten closest to the bullseye in characterizing this as having more to do with a class split among blacks. Black political elites notwithstanding (more on them momentarily), most blacks who see themselves as somewhat empowered are more likely to support Sen. Obama, versus those in the black underclass.

A poll this fall by the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, a black think tank, shows the wide disparity of support for Mr. Obama among blacks. While 75% of blacks who went to college had a favorable or very favorable view of the candidate - rising to 88% among blacks who went to graduate or professional school - support dipped to 62% among those with just a high-school degree and to 42% among blacks who haven't finished high school. A similar pattern shows up as income levels fall among blacks. And while 83% of blacks employed full time had a favorable view of Mr. Obama, just 55% of unemployed blacks did.

The Journal went on to elaborate on class distinctions - however apocryphal - established during slavery between so-called "house slaves" and "field slaves," and in so doing, it got closest to identifying the root cause of the divide between black leadership and the black masses. Some black elites, usually of a generation who was taught that success was contingent on the auspices of "good white folks," are in support of the modern day "Mister Charlie" and "Miss Anne", as much as Bill and Hillary may evoke memories of a kindly landowner whose farm they or their forbears sharecropped. These 21st Century "Uncle Toms" stand in contradistinction to African Americans who have learned that accomplishment flows from one's own efforts, and who tend to support Sen. Obama.

With two key Democrat constituencies in conflict (and in the case of blacks, struggling with internal turmoil), any hope of a Democratic victory in November is all the more remote. The question yet unanswered by Hillary, Bill or Barack is how the party will remain unified and energized such that they can win what will doubtless be a down-to-the-wire election. The Clintons being who they are, we can hardly expect any cooling of their bombast. They have declared Sen. Obama persona non grata, and will continue to act accordingly. For example, it is plain that the subtext of Sen. Clinton's efforts to portray Obama as wholly unqualified for the presidency is that he is some sort of "affirmative-action" candidate.

Whatever happens between a chilly January Saturday in South Carolina and a warm August week in Denver, I fully expect a fight to the finish within the Democratic Party for its own soul. I cannot indicate with great confidence any expectation that the gap between Democrats on the matter of race will the bridged any time soon, as they seem inclined to remain completely oblivious to their own racial biases - legion though they are.

Four More Years!

Random Thoughts on Politics and Race

Like most everyone of a certain age (and a certain number of hard knocks), I know that every convergence is not necessarily harmonic. At the apex of our national celebration of the life and legacy of MLK, we bore witness to an intersection of events that included a former president being told to "chill," a black Democratic candidate getting "smacked down" for acknowledging the singular appeal of a white Republican president (even as said candidate has modeled his campaign on the Reagan revolution), and Democrats continuing to ready the moving vans for a precipitous retreat from Iraq.

During last night's CNN/Congressional Black Caucus debate in South Carolina, Sen. Hillary Clinton condemned President Bush regarding his plans to maintain the stability established by our military in Iraq. By doing so, she ignores the contradictions inherent in her position. Sen. Clinton (and John Edwards) knowingly and willfully voted in support of the President's invasion of Iraq - even in the face of predictions from then-Army Chief of Staff, Eric Shinseki regarding the need for "several hundred thousand" troops as opposed to the approximately 150,000 that were deployed. When things began to unravel, Democrats then cited Gen. Shinseki's remarks in order to question the wisdom of a war that they initially advocated. Congressional Democrats then opposed the troop surge, and now the would-be Democrat nominees are all calling in unison for all military personnel to be withdrawn from Iraq.

If none of this makes sense, it shouldn't. Withdrawing from Iraq in order to "force" the Iraqi parliament to meet entirely arbitrary political benchmarks makes about as much sense as the U.S. leaving the Korean peninsula in order to "force" North and South Korea to come to their own political reconciliation. What also doesn't make sense is why progressives now choose to ignore one of their former poster children who said in a recent Washington Post op-ed that "whether we like it or not, Iraq is central" to the fight against Islamic extremism. Now that retired Gen. John Batiste seems to be on board with the Bush strategy for victory in Mesopotamia, Democrats choose to turn a deaf ear to his admonitions.

We cannot walk away from our strategic interests in the region. Iraq cannot become a staging ground for Islamic extremism or be dominated by other powers in the region, such as Iran and Syria. A premature or precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, without the requisite stability and security, is likely to cause the violence there - which has decreased substantially but is still present - to cascade into an even larger humanitarian crisis.

As for that overheated former president, House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC) indeed suggested that Bill Clinton surely needs to "chill a little bit" on his attacks on Sen. Barack Obama. With Clinton attacking Obama on anything and everything, Obama would be forgiven for feeling besieged. And with CNN reporting "a huge shift among African-American Democrats from Clinton to Obama," the Clintons might be forgiven for their repeated hits below the political belt.

What is not forgivable, at least to the rabid Democrat base, is the idea that Barack Obama would even appear to bestow begrudging praise or even acknowledgment upon Ronald Reagan. How interesting is it that the "transracial" candidate is being verbally assaulted by his fellow liberal progressives for the unforgivable sin of being obliquely complimentary to a white Republican. This from the party that intends to unite Americans such that we can all move beyond political partisanship.

To be sure, none of this surprises. Nor am I entirely surprised that all of this occurred on or about MLK Day. Democrats flagellate themselves in a vain effort to appear slavishly devoted to their African American supplicants. All the while, their actions vis-a-vis race bespeak a barely disguised contempt. It will not be enough for blacks to simply vote for a new type of Democrat. In order to move closer to the fulfillment of Dr. King's aspirations, all of us - black, white and otherwise - will need to recommit to the equally just and achievable goal of equality of opportunity as opposed to an unattainable equality of result.

Clintonism R.I.P.

Hillary Clinton's defeat in Iowa, with - if recent polling data is to be believed - another soon to come in New Hampshire (as even Sen. Hillary Clinton appears ready to acknowledge), is a pleasant non-surprise to those of us who looked upon the Clinton era with equal parts loathing and disgust. But Hillary's impending defeat in the Granite State portends more than the undoing of a carefully stage-crafted campaign. Surely, we are witnessing a sea change in the fortunes of America's (former) premier political couple.

Matt Bai of the New York Times Magazine correctly divined the likelihood of Ms. Clinton being able to launch a viable run for the White House when he correlated her success with public perception of her husband's record as president. In his piece, Bai points out how the nascent split between Bill Clinton's triangulating centrism and the more confrontational tactics embraced by the netroots endangered Hillary's campaign almost from the start.

Even before they knew for sure that she was running for the presidency, Hillary Clinton's top aides had to figure out how best to handle the growing tumult inside their own party. As a senator, Clinton had been, if anything, more centrist than her husband... There is no reason to think such stances on the issues didn't accurately reflect Hillary's convictions, but they had the added bonus of positioning her as eminently moderate and "electable" — both in New York State, where she won 67 percent of the vote in her 2006 re-election, and in the rest of the country.

The party, however, seemed to be moving in a different direction. Liberal activists online and in the states, in the wake of [Howard] Dean's losing campaign, were noisily demanding more confrontation and less Clintonian compromise from their Washington leaders... Some Clinton supporters in Washington thought they could see an ominous train coming down the track, and they wondered if the candidate didn't need to get some distance between herself and her husband's legacy, to position herself as a more partisan Democrat before it was too late.

Mark Penn steadfastly disagreed. Penn, who was Bill Clinton's chief pollster during the '90s, also emerged as Hillary's most influential strategist. Penn had argued for years, going back to the Clinton White House, that Democrats won when they occupied the bipartisan, common-sense center of the political spectrum. And even in a primary campaign, Penn said he believed that Democrats had such personal loyalty toward the Clintons that they would forgive a few ideological differences they might have with the senator, especially if they thought those differences made her palatable to a wide swath of independent voters. When I suggested to Penn, back in 2005, that there might be a strong backlash emerging against the notion of Clintonism, he waved me away. "Strong backlash?" Penn scoffed, reminding me that the former president had a 70 percent approval rating in the country as a whole. "In this environment, that is a notion I would have to laugh at."

I suspect that Mark Penn finds little about which to laugh these days. While the netrooots have not been able to deliver on much politically - as they have shown themselves to be more of a threat to Democrats whom they deem to be insufficiently progressive than to Republicans - the "money guys, bloggers, MoveOn.org" coalesced after the 2000 election to exert an outsized influence on Democrat politics, causing the party to list more to port than in the 1990s. Hillary's electoral misfortunes represent the further cresting of a tsunami of revolt against the Democratic establishment.

To be sure, a similar sort of tidal wave is roiling in microcosm amongst black Democrats. With a preponderance of the African American political elite - many of whom sensing a debt of gratitude more so to the Clintons than to the black proletariat - placing their hopes on Sen. Clinton (to include Reps. John Lewis and Sheila Jackson Lee, former U.N. Ambassador Andrew Young and Jesse Jackson's wife Jacqueline), it has been interesting to watch black leadership struggle to maintain credibility with the petit bourgeois who have largely been endorsing Barack Obama. (H/T: The Wall Street Journal)

In some black organizations and churches there are signs that Mr. Obama's surge is creating divisions between political leaders and their supporters. Lucille Whipper, a Clinton supporter and current leader of South Carolina's Woman's Baptist Educational and Missionary Convention, said she worried that it will be "difficult for me to keep the influence I have and not affect my validity in all the other areas that I work. We have to be very careful that we don't develop in the minds of others that we are not for youth, we are not for change."

With the Clinton campaign in tatters, it is evident that we are witnessing the continued slide of civil rights leaders into further irrelevance and that we are in the post-Clinton era. While we have yet to unwind all of the nettlesomeness of the Clinton presidency, we are at sufficient remove for all but the most irretrievably biased observers to conclude that Bill Clinton's presidency was little more than history standing still. Sadly, history did anything but stand still while Clinton played a southern-fried Nero and the world burned. Perhaps Hillary's worst miscalculation was to assume that her "experience" as Bill's Lady Macbeth would come without the price of guilt by association.