A Farcical Pile-Up - The American Spectator | USA News and Politics
A Farcical Pile-Up

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.

George Neumayr
Follow Their Stories:
View More
George Neumayr, a senior editor at The American Spectator, is author most recently of The Biden Deception: Moderate, Opportunist, or the Democrats' Crypto-Socialist?
Sign up to receive our latest updates! Register

By submitting this form, you are consenting to receive marketing emails from: The American Spectator, 122 S Royal Street, Alexandria, VA, 22314, http://spectator.org. You can revoke your consent to receive emails at any time by using the SafeUnsubscribe® link, found at the bottom of every email. Emails are serviced by Constant Contact

Be a Free Market Loving Patriot. Subscribe Today!