Were the Democratic presidential nomination decided by a PC
hiring committee, Barack Obama would receive it. According to the
calculus of suffering devised by political correctness, blacks
deserve jobs before white women of privilege. Of course, Hillary
has more “experience” than Obama. She had all the
opportunities!
Didn’t Hillary read Sandra Day O’Connor’s seminal opinion in the
2003 University of Michigan affirmative action case which settled
these thorny contests for the illuminati? In that opinion, O’Connor
declared that “We expect that 25 years from now the use of racial
preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest
approved today.”
In light of this opinion, Hillary Clinton’s meritocratic
arguments against Obama are troubling in their reactionary
undertones. In keeping with O’Connor’s timetable of accelerated
egalitarianism, Hillary really ought to take a dive and try again
at the age of 80. Besides, how could she possibly serve ethnic
minorities in our increasingly diverse land? She isn’t one
herself.
Her “experience” argument is terribly passe. As political
correctness has tutored the nation for decades, color provides
experience enough — a kind of qualification that no white person
can possess, no matter how hard they work.
Hillary says that she has labored for “35 years” to advance All
Good Things. So? She hasn’t undergone ordeals as an ethnic
minority, and that’s the only experience which counts. Moreover, to
borrow the mantra of the Clinton years, we don’t need excellence,
but “equality” — a presidential administration which “looks like
America.”
What a noxious brew of subtle ageism and racism the Clinton
campaign has become. Americans are instructed by Bill Clinton not
to “roll the dice” on a youthful black man of unknown ability.
That’s quite cold. How is he supposed to acquire ability without
affirmative action?
Most disappointingly, as we head into a weekend of Martin Luther
King celebrations, the Clinton campaign isn’t just judging Obama
according to the color of his skin; it’s also maligning the content
of his character. Why give him such a hard time for his past
cocaine use? Wasn’t that a qualification during the Clinton years?
Where’s Roger Clinton for empathetic and circumspect counsel during
this delicate period in the campaign? That’s Obama’s personal deal,
he would surely remind his brother.
And remember all those security clearance forms from the Clinton
years which his staffers hesitated to fill out owing to past drug
use? They plowed forward with the nation’s business anyways,
inspired by the example of their
formerly-pot-smoking-but-not-inhaling leader to see that a small
matter like crack use shouldn’t deprive the people of their
abundant talents.
THE DEMOCRATIC presidential campaign has become a farcical pile-up
of left-wing contradictions. The Clintons, having bred their own PC
destroyers, now scramble to use the bluntest weapons possible
against them.
The low tactics are beyond parody. For example, the Clintons’
planned MLK weekend festivities include trying to disenfranchise
black culinary workers by encouraging a lawsuit against them for
holding caucuses at their place of business. (Noting this irony on
television, the head of Nevada’s Culinary Union said the suit is
nothing more than payback for its endorsement of Obama.)
Perhaps even more astonishing than that is the drug charges
against Obama are peddled by affirmative-action surrogates who
normally do somersaults for checkered black politicians but now
turn prim on an upwardly mobile one.
Arrayed against a dignified family that looks like a reassuring
episode of The Cosby Show, who do the Clintons unleash
against the Obamas? None other than BET founder Robert L. Johnson,
who before Hillary’s purring gaze this week cast a successful black
man as a former drug dealer, then added lying to his malice by
denying the obvious import of his statement.
The most formative period in the Clintons’ lives were the 1960s
— years of fairy tales, drug use, and empty eloquence. But at the
end of their march they find before the final door an incarnation
of the dream which they must destroy in order to enter it. The
essential egotism of their project from the beginning is exposed
for all to see: raw power, not idealistic principle, fueled it, and
it is altogether fitting that these icons of a destructive
generation choose as their last victim one who embodies its best
hopes.
No one is more authoritarian than a successful revolutionary, to
which this most corrupt couple in American political history
provides vivid proof, displaying an ugliness greater than that of
the establishment figures they overthrew.
