sisu

Spinning isn't everything. It's the ONLY thing.

Political strongcat Tiny "The Warrior" signals her displeasure to Baby "The Cakes" with a hissing, snarling neck grab as her brother makes the mistake of coming too close in maneuvering past her on the kitchen counter in pursuit of kitty treats. Note Tiny's furious glare and Baby's hang-cat look of resignation.

"Obama has used Chicago politics throughout his political life, and this writer is surprised NOW?" asks exasperated LDotter chiptill in the comments at Lucianne re AP reporters Liz Sidoti's and Nedra Pickler's shock, shock, that Barack Obama is "signaling a shift in tactics and temperament as he moves from candidate to president-elect, picking sharp-elbowed Washington insiders" like former Clinton apparatchik Rahm Emanuel, a "fiery partisan who doesn't mind breaking glass and hurting feelings," as chief of staff. We guess it depends upon what your definition of "shift" is. The London Times explains:

Described by those who know him as variously an attack dog, warrior, political gangster – the appointment of Rahm Emanuel as Barack Obama’s chief of staff has sent a shiver of unease through Republicans hoping for a new spirit of conciliation under the newly-elected president.

Others say the take-no-prisoners partisan nicknamed Rahmbo is a perfect fit for the almost preternaturally serene Mr Obama, who will need political strongmen around him if he is to push through the radical changes he seeks.

We doubt many Beltway Republicans were "hoping for a new spirit of conciliation," assuming they have read between the lines of Obama's meteoric rise. Like any successful politician, he has always done whatever it takes. In the Windy City you ally yourself with Chicago power brokers, throwing folks under the bus as necessary along the road to the White House. Once inside the Beltway, you ally yourself with Washington power brokers. Read between the lines of that AP report:

The selections are telling for Obama, who campaigned as a nontraditional, almost "post-partisan" newcomer … Obama himself brims with self-confidence, to the point that some people view him as arrogant. But to a greater degree than many presidents, he appears willing to lean on Washington insiders associated with other politicians …

In Emanuel, Obama has chosen a fellow Chicagoan who intimately knows both the White House and Congress, as a former political and policy aide for President Clinton and a current Illinois congressman who is the No. 4 Democrat in the House …

House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio was less kind. He called his appointment an "ironic choice for a president-elect who has promised to change Washington, make politics more civil and govern from the center."

Promises, promises. With apologies to the great Vince Lombardi, Congressman Boehner, spinning isn't everything. It's the ONLY thing, and according to a 1998 WaPo report, spinning is the new chief of staff's stock in trade. "While most of his friends in the original Clinton team of 1992 … are traditional Democrats, Emanuel was a major force prodding Clinton to fasion a 'New Democrat' image." A few fun facts from that article:

While adapting an image of blustery swagger, Emanuel is an observant Jew and holds private sessions with his rabbi twice monthly. The tough-talking aide also takes time out each Saturday to don tights and practice ballet, which he began to study in high school. Beneath his hard edges, Emanuel has a surprisingly sweet side — sentimental and attentive to friends — that made him a popular figure among White House colleagues.

The insistent style that made him effective as a fund-raiser in 1992 proved transferable as he moved to politics and policy. His ethic is that there is no detail too small to sweat when it comes to Clinton's image …

For his part, Emanuel said he has learned to become more politic in his White House years. Even the first lady became a supporter. Acknowledging that he was too brash for his own good early on, he said that "as influence grows, so should humility."

Let's hope a bit of the "humility thing" rubs off on his new boss. Meanwhile, a few excerpts from Andrew Malcolm's LA Times blog suggest Rahm Emanuel may have learned some important lessons from past mistakes in the first Clinton administration:

Here are the very first few things Rahm Emanuel, president-elect Barack Obama's White House chief of staff-designate, is going to do. And they're gonna disappoint the DailyKos crowd:

First, be fast out of the gate.

Be well-organized.

Be moderate.

Run to the middle politically. You're going to need those centrist folks for a second term. And it's never too soon to act on that.

Above all, remember: First impressions are crucial. They take forever to correct. Within 90 days Americans in this day and age will be forming some pretty firm convictions about the Obama Administration.

Finally, back to that AP article:

With the selection, Democrats say Obama seemed to recognize he may have his work cut out for him in taming the House: Liberals may try to push their own agenda, not necessarily Obama's. They say Emanuel is someone who not only can stand up to Congress but also maneuver through it to achieve a chief executive's goals.

And, Emanuel provides something Obama lacks — a temperament and willingness to snarl, even at his boss' allies.

To varying degrees, the party's liberals and labor leaders are wary of Emanuel [as the WSJ notes in "Obama's Real Opposition: Presidents come and go; Congressional barons are forever"]. He helped Clinton push the North American Free Trade Agreement through the House, angering the left [You go, Rahmbo!].

Angering the left. Disappointing the DailyKos crowd. Running to the middle politically. It's not the Obama we knew.

Update: "But what about the cautionary ad of MoveOn.org that essentially said "We raised $80 million for your campaign and now we own you!"? asks blog buddy Gayle Miller in a rousing rant in the comments:

What about that, huh, huh? My guess is that in order to raise the obscene amount of campaign money raised by Obama, he has sold himself — body, soul and ears — to everyone out there willing to purchase their own piece of the prez! This is a polyester nightmare kind of presidency coming up.

By contrast, notes Gayle, "Even when they are fussing at each other, those two cats are GORGEOUS!"

Update II: Lots more gorgeous animals, with and without backbones, at Modulator's Friday Ark #216.

Update III: We're pleased to report the WSJ agrees with our assessment:

Republicans are howling about Barack Obama's choice of Rahm Emanuel as his White House chief of staff, claiming the Illinois Congressman is a rough partisan who belies Mr. Obama's campaign rhetoric about comity and bipartisanship.

For our part, we like the choice. Mr. Emanuel is likely to be a restraining influence on the wackier Members of Congress …

As for Mr. Emanuel's famously sharp elbows, they are as likely to be wielded against his fellow Democrats as against Republicans. With Democrats now so dominant, the fiercest fights -- and the ones that really matter -- will take place among Democratic factions in the White House and Capitol Hill. Mr. Emanuel can help Mr. Obama understand when he needs to ignore the pleas of the left and govern from the center.

As we said above, "Angering the left. Disappointing the DailyKos crowd. Running to the middle politically. It's not the Obama we knew."

Update IV:  "AWESOME post!!" imails our sis:

To start with, though, the cats don't look like "sparring partners." It looks as though Tiny is "pulling a Mike Tyson" and biting off Baby's ear.

But, yes. The choice of Emanuel will be most interesting to watch. Obviously HE wants the power, and stopping the idiot Congressional RATS in their tracks will be a good place to start.

If history's a guide, their all-about-me agendas will cancel each other out.

"I found a cat that was registered to vote"

When a cat registered [presumably as a Democrat] to vote was discovered in Cleveland's Cayahoga County a few years back, any sensible person would have realized at once it was fraud. Just ask Tiny, above in a post-catnip stupor (note flakes on fur). Cats are neither Republican nor Democrat but Independent.

"I found a cat that was registered to vote," Bill Sammon is telling Megyn Kelly on Fox News re Acorn (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) voter-registration fraud in Ohio back when Bill was an investigative reporter covering the Cayahoga County Board of Elections for the Cleveland Plain Dealer during a previous election:

They weren't sure whether it was a DemoCAT, fat-CAT Republican or working for Ross PURR-ot. Acorn isn't just some left-wing group. Its a group that Barack Obama used to work for and served as an attorney for suing the state of Illinois to implement the motor-voter law.

After partaking of the weed, she finishes things off with a good roll in the plate.

Ironically, Acorn has emerged from the shadows to center stage thanks to Democrat lawmakers' stealth attempts to pad the bail-out/rescue bill with funds siphoned through housing welfare via the Housing Trust Fund, "a boondoggle that Democrats in Congress have used to fund political-action groups like ACORN and the National Council of La Raza," as Ed Morrissey wrote recently.

"How is it that tax dollars can be earmarked to enable such an obviously partisan group?" an incredulous Megyn asks a reporter on the scene:

A lot of them, especially Republicans, are waking up on Capital Hill [following Democrat attempts to direct funds to Acorn through the bailout/rescue bill].

Can we credit John McCain, whose temporary suspension of his campaign two weeks back to join the Senate debate on the ongoing financial crisis caught his Democrat opponent and fellow travelers in the Congress and the media off guard, perhaps the catalyst that shook things up enough to isolate the stealth "sweetener" Democrats were trying to blend into the stew?

Update: Whoever or whatever is responsible for ferreting out the dirty doings of Barack Obama allies, one thing is certain. Steve of Modulator is responsible for bringing to light all things bright and beautiful at Friday Ark #212.

Update II: Dr. Sanity is responsible for bringing to light all things dim and ugly about human nature in the latest Carnival of the Insanities.

Update III: Maggie's links.

Update IV: My Big Fat Orange Cat — We LOVE the name of her blog! — hosts a lively Carnival of the Cats.

"Now would somebody please do something?"

"Two Democrats on an escalator" (with thanks to blogfriend boymoto), a perfect metaphor for the nanny-state mentality. (Videomaker unknown)

You're riding up an escalator when suddenly it stops, stranding you between floors. What do you do? Probably curse a little under your breath, then shift mental gears, climb the rest of the way to the top and go on about your business. But what if you had been conditioned by years of nanny-statism into a default mode of helplessness? From the video:

He: There are two people stuck on an escalator, and we need help now. Now would somebody please do something!?

She: HELP!

It never occurs to them to pick themselves up by their bootstraps and be on their way. Instead they remain stuck in place, waiting for the powers be that be to come rescue them.

"The facts are irrelevant"

"They are like bookends. They will bring you many years of pleasure," a veterinarian's assistant predicted years ago of then kittens Tiny (above) and Baby (below), out in the side yard this afternoon assuming full bookend posture.

Googling a half-remembered quotation [see caption, above] from our post "An exultation of adolescence" of a couple of years back, we had a eureka moment this evening — unrelated to the quotation itself — reading the words of Dr. Joy Bliss of Maggie's Farm:

What if the part of human nature which wants paternalism, or maternalism, in the State is sometimes, or often, stronger than the part that wants freedom and self-determination?

It called to mind our imail conversation with Goomp yesterday morning as we shared thoughts on Thomas Sowell's latest essay, "Are Facts Obsolete?" First, here's Tom:

As the hypnotic mantra of "change" is repeated endlessly, few people even raise the question of whether what few specifics we hear represent any real change, much less a change for the better.

Raising taxes, increasing government spending and demonizing business? That is straight out of the New Deal of the 1930s.

The New Deal was new then but it is not new now. Moreover, increasing numbers of economists and historians have concluded that New Deal policies are what prolonged the Great Depression.

Babe mirrors Tiny's leonine pose in the countdown to supper.

"It is depressing how ignorant people are of how the world works," Goomp wrote, responding to Dr. Sowell's point that "A politician's problem is how to look like he is for 'the poor' and against those who are 'exploiting' them. The facts are irrelevant to maintaining that political image":

Goomp [channeling Dr. Bliss's question]: It is all because they want to escape from personal responsibility.

We: They want to continue to suckle at the maternalistic udder.

He: And be told how wonderful they are.

And politicians are only too happy to oblige. Flirting dangerously with Godwin's Law, we summed things up awhile back in "What's wrong with the utopianist left world view," our post linked by Dr. Bliss in her own post referenced above:

As we've blogged early and often, the totalitarian instinct runs deep and dark in our species. It is forever raising its ugly head on both ends of the political spectrum, and cheating your way to victory is precisely where it's at. Ends justify the means. That's why commies and Nazis -- not to mention Islamofascists -- parrot the same party line: We educated elites know what's best for you plebes. Bill and Hill's "What if you spend your money wrong?" and "We are going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good" come to mind.

Then there's "libertarian paternalism," a subliminal approach to political persuasion that has "caught the imagination of top politicians" including Barack Obama, according to a breathless London Times interview of behavioral scientist Richard Thaler, co-author with Cass Sunstein of Nudge:

So why the political interest? Because you can influence people's choices without being accused of "nannying" and it is cheap. Or, as the authors put it: "If incentives and nudges replace requirements and bans, government will be both smaller and more modest … In short, libertarian paternalism is neither left nor right, neither Democratic nor Republican. In many areas, the most thoughtful Democrats are going beyond their enthusiasm for choice-eliminating programs. In many areas, the most thoughtful Republicans are abandoning their knee-jerk opposition to constructive governmental initiatives."

Considering ourselves among "the most thoughtful Republicans," we are skeptical. So is David Gordon of the Ludwig von Mises Intitute, who notes that "Tocqueville long ago warned against the policies of which libertarian paternalism is an example." Blogger Cassy Fiano gets it just right in her post — with video link — on GWs press conference this morning where he tells mewling reporters that "Americans are smart enough to figure out whether they're going to drive less or not."

Liberals just can’t seem to grasp the fact that people don’t need their all-knowing wisdom-filled genius to live happy and full lives. When President Bush said that it was presumptuous to tell Americans how to live their own lives, I wanted to cheer. It’s something that liberals aren’t able to understand. They think that the American people are idiots who can’t be trusted to be intelligent enough to figure things out on their own, and therefore need liberals to come in and do everything for them.

And now back to Dr. Joy Bliss for the final word:

State parentalism is one step from totalitarianism. And not just psychologically, but also in reality. First, you get the people used to the idea that they can depend on the government to take care of you and to solve your problems (rather than simply to defend you, and to keep life reasonably fair), and, having slowly softened them up, you build on that until you can't smoke a cigarette in your car without getting fined, or find a decent fried chicken take-out in NYC.

We're smart enough, Barack Obama. Oh, and we're not a racist.

Update: Congratulations to the blogosphere's own Noah, our good blogfriend Steve of Modulator, for launching the Friday Ark on its 200th outing!

Update II: Lots more smart talk at Dr. Sanity's Carnival of the Insanities.

"Simultaneously petty, and yet, grandiose and presumptuous"

"Double-flowering tulip in our 'parterre' garden lifts its skirts to show a little ankle," we captioned an earlier iteration three years back of the lovely pale pink blossoms now gracing our garden, comparing them to "Laura Bush's naughty-but-nice performance at the White House Correspondents Dinner" a few days earlier.

"The left systematically substitutes compassion for standards, which is not a recipe for excellence, to say the least," writes Gagdad Bob in a sparkling gem of a post about the chip on Michelle Obama's shoulder:

You just have to be so ahistorically narcissistic to share Obama's bleak vision of the United States. Your mind has to essentially circle in a tight spiral around your own myopia and provincialism, so that it is simultaneously petty, and yet, grandiose and presumptuous. Far from having doors closed to her, this is a woman who has probably never been confronted and brought down a peg, one of the sad legacies of white liberal guilt. This is the very reason why left-wing black "thinkers" tend not just to be such cringeworthy mediocrities, but downright embarrassments, such as Cornell West, whereas conservative black thinkers such as Thomas Sowell or Shelby Steele are as brilliant as they come.

Sister Sue (center) left 'em rolling in the aisles as Bea -- the role first played by Bea Arthur -- in "Lovers and Other Strangers" at the Amesbury Playhouse last night.

Then there's Michelle's helpmeet, Barack's misreading of what this Shining City Upon a Hill is all about. Professor Bainbridge puts it best:

If humans are by their very nature imperfect and, moreover, imperfectible, it follows necessarily that human institutions are also inherently imperfect and, moreover, imperfectible. Even the United States of America.

The framers of the American Republic were highly conscious of this basic fact. They knew that fallen mankind was capable of great evil and that tyranny therefore was an ever present threat in human society.

Professor B. was writing in the context of B. Obama's utopianist assertion that "I believe in our ability to perfect this union because it’s the only reason I’m standing here today." The fact-challenged fellow might do well to review not only an atlas of these United States but also a history of the Plimouth Plantation's belated discovery of the power of capitalism.

One wonders whether the presidential contender from Chicago's South Side really believes this stuff or rather has such a low opinion of the intelligence and historical sense of his fellow citizens as to believe they will fall for it and vote him into the Oval Office. What with the history-challenged, anti-capitalist curriculum promulgated by his neighbor Bill Ayers, he may be onto something.

All the world's a stage. Let me entertain you. L'chaim!

Thinking about the power behind the throne, whom would you rather have as first lady/rogue, Michelle, Bubba or Cindy?

Update: The Anchoress links in one of her wide-ranging, addictive Q&A posts.

Pope reframes core message of his papacy

"In a stunning move prior to his US visit next week, Pope Benedict XVI has decided to change the words of the Nicene Creed," deadpanned priest blogger Owl of the Remove recently in a ScrappleFace "Is the pope Catholic?" moment. Before and after images above illustrate the pontiff's "clear and constructive reframing of the core message" of his papacy. Thanks to our dear friend and fellow member of the B16 Fan Club, Jill  of The Business of Life, for the heads up.

"That was a very impressive, clear and constructive flipflopping reframing of the core message of his candidacy," writes a starry-eyed Andrew Sullivan [via Brendan Loy and PJM] regarding Barack Obama's politically astute tossing of  his "spiritual mentor" yesterday in response to the tediously all-about-me Reverend Jeremiah Wright's having come right out and called a spade pandering politician a spade pandering politician. It was one thing to rant and rave behind closed church doors about America as Great Satan, but you don't step out into the sunlight and start telling the world that your former acolyte, like the politician he is, will do whatever it takes to win. Our sense is that those like Sullivan, who want to believe, will enjoy a renewal of faith in the object of their worship, while those like Thomas Sowell -- and ourselves -- who've been there and done that will not be amused. "Everything seems new to those too young to remember the old and too ignorant of history to have heard about it," wrote Sowell the other day, as usual catching the conscience of the would-be kingmakers:

There is no reason why someone as arrogant, foolishly clever and ultimately dangerous as Barack Obama should become president -- especially not at a time when the threat of international terrorists with nuclear weapons looms over 300 million Americans . . .

One of the painful aspects of studying great catastrophes of the past is discovering how many times people were preoccupied with trivialities when they were teetering on the edge of doom. The demographics of the presidency are far less important than the momentous weight of responsibility that office carries . . .

Although Senator Obama has presented himself as the candidate of new things -- using the mantra of "change" endlessly -- the cold fact is that virtually everything he says about domestic policy is straight out of the 1960s, and virtually everything he says about foreign policy is straight out of the 1930s.

On the other hand, "Conservatives ought not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. (That's liberals' job!)," writes Brendan Loy of Irish Trojan in Tennessee, arguing for "a big-picture view of this, please?":

Obama is doing the right thing here, and if he's a little late to the party, slap him on the wrist and then defend him against the coming Wright/Sharpton/etc. onslaught. And then beat him in November on security issues or whatever. But he's on the right side of this issue, and if he loses because of it, it will be a shame for everyone -- principled conservatives included.

Unfortunately, as Sowell wrote recently-- blogged here -- "The fact that Obama talks differently than Jeremiah Wright does not mean that his track record is different." Is the junior Senator from Illinois prepared to forsake the mother's milk of grievance? Sowell again:

Barack Obama's voting record in the Senate is perfectly consistent with the far left ideology and the grievance culture, just as his wife's statement that she was never proud of her country before is consistent with that ideology.

Then there's that unfinished business about Bill Ayers, Obama's Hyde Park neighbor and supporter who -- in Sol Stern's words -- "through his indoctrination of future K-12 teachers has been able to influence what happens in hundreds, perhaps thousands, of classrooms," where -- in our words -- "zombies teachers inculcated with the Marxist talking points of influential anti-capitalist propagandists like [Ayers] are, as Sol Stern wrote, assiduously working below the radar to 'turn the little ones into young socialists and critical theorists.'" Where, exactly, does Obama stand on "critical theory"? We're with Becky C of Just a Girl in Short Shorts Talking About Whatever on this one:

Dr. Ayers and his fellow latte sipping Marxists browbeat young teaching students until they accept the thoroughly discredited economic and social theories of dialectic materialism, much as the victims of Mao's Cultural Revolution did.

Bill Ayers is just a nerdy misguided college freshman who never grew up and cannot stop playing revolution.

Unfortunately, there are way too many people, including perhaps Barack Obama, who take him seriously.

Hey, Hillary & Company, what say you take this one for an outing?

Update: "This is getting no traction, writes Tom Maguire of Just One Minute:

As to where this story is headed -- who knows? I don't think Hillary's staffers are regular readers here, but they may have picked it up from Global Labor, Larry Johnson or Jeralyn Merritt, and they sure could use this now. McCain's people and the RNC ought to like this story since McCain is comfortable bashing Ayers, but September or October may be fine for them.

The MSM has done nothing here, unsurprisingly. As to Rush, Hannity, and the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy -- other than Hot Air, American Thinker, and Wizbang this is getting no traction. Michael Barone wrote about how the Ayers story had broken through to the MSM, but they have a long way to go. And we call ourselves a Noise Machine!

Now that the Professor has linked Maguire, we may be looking at some legs.

Update II: Noise Machine on high volume at Sanity's Carnival of the Insanities.

Hillary said something wonderful and heartfelt

"Given the state of the country and the world today, her opinions are candid, thoughtful and are bound to provoke debate," says the blurb of our "TypePad Featured Blogs" post, published today. "SISU is a blog that sneaks up on you with little cat feet, settles in, and doesn’t let go." Prrr. JoAnn Peach is a peach.

"Obama has clearly been an opportunist in his political career. All good politicians are," writes Rick Moran at Pajamas Media in a totally awesome analysis of the unraveling of Barack Obama's tapestry of deceit:

And the best ones seize their opportunities without hesitation and run as far as luck and brains can take them. Obama has been lucky. He has also been as calculating a politician as we have seen since Lyndon Johnson ruled the senate. Both men proved to have towering ambition and enormous political gifts.

In the end, the answer to the riddle is that both men set a goal early in their careers and never let anything get in the way of achieving it. This includes principles espoused in their public speeches which for both men had a nasty habit of contradicting what they were doing in the political trenches. We are just finding this out about Obama -- as we are discovering that the candidate is also an elitist of the first order . . .

By trying to diagnose what is wrong with the Rust Belt middle class, Obama reveals a shockingly cartoonish understanding of white people -- in its own way as ignorant as Reverend Wright’s clownish demonizations of whites. This is an Obama out of touch with regular folks, speaking in disparaging tones about people who take their religion seriously or have an abiding love of the outdoors represented by their owning a firearm (hunting being a second religion in Pennsylvania). It was a dumbfounding moment, showing a candidate who views about half of America as victims of their own bitter frustrations.

As we said in our previous post, we had his number way back in December of 2006, but as for the lately smitten amongst our fellow Americans, better late than never. For us the shock of it all was that Hillary said something wonderful and heartfelt -- morally and politically credible and oh, such sweet music to our ears -- in response to her Democratic opponent's gaffe:

I grew up in a church-going family, a family that believed in the importance of living out and expressing our faith. The people of faith I know don't 'cling' to religion because they're bitter. People embrace faith not because they are materially poor, but because they are spiritually rich.

Our faith is the faith of our parents and our grandparents. It is a fundamental expression of who we are and what we believe.

We noticed in our Site Meter stats over 100 hits in one hour a little while ago and thrilled at the thought that an Instalanche was in progress, but no. Dozens and dozens of google.co.uk image searchers had typed in "pompeii" and arrived at the above page, where an image of Pompeii victims -- inset -- from our three-year-old post "Then a gradual return to forgetfulness" was sixth in line.

The fog comes on little cat feet. It sits looking over harbor and city on silent haunches and then moves on [with thanks to our imail correspondent, who writes "Is it Sandberg? You know how I, the English major, can't keep my poets straight."]. More from Rick Moran's Obamanalysis:

The more we learn about Obama, the wider the gap grows between the messianic character on the stump whose golden voice and pitch perfect rhetoric has inspired millions of people and the coldly calculating careerist politician whose elitism has blinded him to the struggles and hopes of ordinary people.

The two Obamas are irreconcilable. And the confusion felt by many will almost certainly translate into a loss of support for the candidate in these final primaries that will determine the Democratic nominee for president.

The Lord truly does move in mysterious ways, and Obama is toast.

"Liberalism began not as an outgrowth of progressivism but as a reaction to it"

 

Washing yourself is all about Fur, Fur, Fur! Babe, above, covers all the angles.

Democrat operative Donna Brazile -- a real charmer despite our total disagreement with everything we've ever heard come out of her mouth -- on CNN last night commenting on the Potomac primary results:

McCain is all about Fear, Fear, Fear! Obama is all about Hope, Hope, Hope!

John McCain, Potomac primary victory speech:

To encourage a country with only rhetoric rather than sound and proven ideas that trust in the strength and courage of free people is not a promise of hope. It is a platitude.

Johnny, we hardly knew ye. Sounding better and better every day. Meanwhile, Barack Obama, Potomac primary speech:

And where better to affirm our ideals than here in Wisconsin, where a century ago the progressive movement was born. It was rooted in the principle that the voices of the people can speak louder than special interests; that citizens can be connected to their government and to one another; and that all of us share a common destiny, an American Dream.

But to which brand of progressivism is Senator Obama referring, we wonder, the vox populi strain his rhetoric suggests or the one rooted in the principle that experts know best what's good for the little people. [Yes, you, Hillary] Austin Bramwell in "Defining Conservatism Down" -- quoted in our post "Preferring truth to wishful thinking" a couple of years back -- recalling the rise and fall of the liberal project by way of a warning to conservatives:

The story of liberalism’s decline is often rehearsed these days, by rueful liberals and gleeful conservatives alike. Few, however, tell the more interesting story of liberalism’s ascendance. The vague sense still prevails that liberalism grew naturally out of 19th-century progressivism before culminating in the New Deal and reaching apogee in the Kennedy administration. This view owes less to history, however, than to liberals’ conceit that theirs is the crowning American ideology.

Liberalism began not as an outgrowth of progressivism but as a reaction to it. The progressive movement, born out of fear of the centralizing tendencies of the Industrial Revolution, lacked intellectual foundations. Its leaders favored a farrago of policies that pitted the farmer against the urban sophisticate, the common man against the plutocrat, the native American versus the immigrant, and traditional religion against modern corruption. Progressives spoke the language of evangelical revival, famously exemplified by William Jennings Bryan’s “Cross of Gold” speech. Often literally, they called on their fellow citizens to repent and return to the Lord. As the Progressive Era waned, liberals viewed these populist enthusiasms with dismay.

The people, in [the liberal elites'] view, remained stubbornly benighted, saw political problems in naïve moralistic terms, and could not carry out the project of reform. Accordingly, liberalism’s leading intellects began to fashion a new ideology that called for elite social scientists, rather than a virtuous populace, to address the problems of the modern world . . .

It's liberals' contempt for us little people out here that's always stuck in our craw. You remember Hillary's inedible "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good," not to mention her hubbie's equally indigestible "What if you spend your money wrong?"

Liberalism came of age in the New Deal, which finally succeeded in replacing representative government with a European-style administrative state, staffed by the nation’s ablest, most idealistic men. After World War II, when the national mood no longer favored reform, liberals turned to an even more elite institution -- the Supreme Court -- to continue remaking American society. For a generation, liberalism so dominated American life that, while conservatives saw conservatism as the taste of a saving remnant, liberals became convinced that their ideology expressed the natural sentiments of the American people.

Intellectual sclerosis, however, soon set in . . . As Nixon put it, the Democrats became the party of acid, amnesty, and abortion. They have been losing power ever since.

Earlier that same year back in the age of enlightenment (2005) when Bramwell wrote about the ascension and subsequent fall of liberalism, we confidently blogged in "Bloggers are 'cracking, popping, drilling and peeling their victimes open'":

The leftist utopian dream was doomed from the start because it denied the economic logic of nature and human nature.

With Barack "Most Liberal Senator" Obama's Pied Piper Tour, we're not so sure any more about the demise of the leftist utopian dream. "The Phenom" in WSJ Review and Outlook this morning: 

What Democrats have needed is an excuse to liberate themselves from the fear that only the Clintons are tough enough to defeat Republicans, and they are now finding that liberation in Mr. Obama.

As Thomas Sowell -- quoted in our post "The improbable is now possible" -- wrote a month back:

By far the best presentation as a candidate, among all the candidates in both parties, is that of Barack Obama. But if he actually believes even half of the irresponsible nonsense he talks, he would be an utter disaster in the White House.

Among the Democrats, the choice between John Edwards and Barack Obama depends on whether you prefer glib demagoguery in its plain vanilla form or spiced with a little style and color.

The choice between both of them and Hillary Clinton depends on whether you prefer male or female demagoguery.

Demagogue. [Greek dēmagōgos, popular leader : dēmos, people + agōgos, leading (from agein, to lead).] Egad. Ann Coulter is just now telling Neil Cavuto on Fox News that George Soros is funding BOTH Obama and John Boy. We already knew that Soros was behind the astroturf-roots clamoring for McCain-Feingold "finance reform."

For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. (1 Timothy 6:10)

We're talking Beltway politicians here. Whatever it takes to win.

Update: Despite our reservations, we find ourselves warming to McCain's candidacy now that he seems headed for the nomination, looking for good omens in the entrails of the writings of our favorite thinkers. Daniel Henniger's "Obama at the Top" in Thursday's WSJ didn't disappoint:

Right after [Obama's] Wisconsin speech, TV broadcast another -- by victorious John McCain. The contrast with Sen. Obama's is stark. The arc of the McCain speech is upward, positive. Pointedly, he says we are not history's "victims." Barack relentlessly pushes victimology.

For Sen. Obama the military and national security is a world of catastrophe welded to Iraq and filled with maimed soldiers. Mr. McCain locates these same difficult subjects inside the whole of American military achievement. It nets out as a more positive message. Recall that Ronald Reagan's signature optimism, when it first appeared, was laughed at by political pros. Optimism won elections.

Whatever else, Barack Obama isn't talking sunshine in America. He's talking fast and furious. People not yet baptized into Obamamania may start to look past the dazzling theatrics to see a vision of the United States that is quite grim and could wear thin in the general election.

Onward and upward. Yes we can.

Update: More onward and upward movement at Dr. Sanity's Carnival of the Insanities.

"The improbable is now possible"

"Today is Primary Day, and our momentum has hit New Hampshire," emails a breathless Michelle Obama (we put our name on her hubby's mailing list to keep an eye on what the other side is up to). To liven things up, we tried substituting what's really happening on the ground (red type) for the vapid, empty phrase du jour, "change," in her boilerplate message:

Thousands of people are realizing that fundamental change stopping the Clinton juggernaut is within reach. The improbable is now possible.

My husband is a special leader. He has an amazing ability to bring people to the table and create real change entice them to abandon Hillary.

But he is the first to admit that this is bigger than him. Americans are ready for change an end to the hegemony of the Clinton machine and ready to work together to make it happen. It's humbling and inspiring, but more than anything, it's an awakening for each one of us.

It's a wonderful thing to see what's happening here in New Hampshire.

Indeed. Not that we'd ever vote for a leftie like Obama, of course. As our imail correspondent writes, "Obama scares me to death, but let me have this one day of 'payback is a bitch, huh, Hillary?'" Thomas Sowell explains:

By far the best presentation as a candidate, among all the candidates in both parties, is that of Barack Obama. But if he actually believes even half of the irresponsible nonsense he talks, he would be an utter disaster in the White House.

Among the Democrats, the choice between John Edwards and Barack Obama depends on whether you prefer glib demagoguery in its plain vanilla form or spiced with a little style and color.

The choice between both of them and Hillary Clinton depends on whether you prefer male or female demagoguery.

Exactly. And speaking of demagoguery, you're probably aware that all the candidates on the left side of the aisle are hiding their heads in the sand and pretending, against all evidence, that General Petraeus's counterinsurgency strategy -- the surge -- in Iraq isn't working. Opinion Journal has the gory details:

Barack Obama is of a sudden the front-runner, so his view of the surge merits the closest look. His first assertion echoed what has become a standard line by the war's opponents, that "we have not made ourselves safer as a consequence." What can this possibly mean? In more than six years there hasn't been one successful terrorist attack on the U.S., even as places elsewhere were hit or actively targeted.

Then Senator Obama placidly said that the Sunnis in Anbar Province began to help the U.S."after the Democrats were elected in 2006." What's more, the Democrats' victory showed them they were "going to be left very vulnerable to the Shias." This obviously means the Democrats would abandon them.

But the Sunni Awakening, as it is called, with its fall in bloodshed, occurred only after the Anbar Sunnis were convinced that the U.S. troops would not abandon them to al Qaeda in Iraq. Sunni sheiks have said explicitly it was the new U.S. policy of sustaining the offensive against AQI that made it possible for them to resist the jihadists. The U.S. military has supported the spread of these "awakening councils" in other areas of Iraq. It is navel-gazing in the extreme for Mr. Obama to suggest U.S. Congressional elections caused this turn.

Well, that's what politicians do. Blame opponents when things go wrong and take credit when things go right. We googled one of Obama's foreign policy advisers we'd seen on Fox yesterday, Pulitzer Prizewinner Samantha Power of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, to try to divine her boss's "thinking" and found her otherwise thoughtful and helpful analysis of "Our War on Terror" -- published in the NYT at the end of July as the surge was starting to show positive results -- laced with reflexive anti-Bush sentiment. Even as she praises General Petraeus and the US Army/Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual, she can't bring herself to give the President credit for having chosen the General to carry out the surge. An excerpt to give you the flavor:

But criticizing the calamities of the last six years of American foreign policy has become all too easy. And it does not itself improve our approach to combating terrorist threats that do in fact loom large -- larger, in fact, because of Bush’s mistakes. The challenge now is to accept that just because George W. Bush hyped the threat does not mean the threat should be played down. Rather, we must urgently set about reversing the harm done to the nation’s standing ['guess she missed what the WSJ recently called the "new generation of European leaders clamoring to make friends with America"] and security by simultaneously reasserting the moral difference between the United States and Islamic terrorists and by developing a 21st-century toolbox to minimize actual terrorist threats . . .

The fundamental premise of the manual is that the key to successful counterinsurgency is protecting civilians. The manual notes: “An operation that kills five insurgents is counterproductive if collateral damage leads to the recruitment of 50 more insurgents.” It suggests that force size be calculated in relation not to the enemy, but to inhabitants (a minimum of 20 counterinsurgents per 1,000 residents). It emphasizes the necessity of coordination with beefed-up civilian agencies, which are needed to take on reconstruction and development tasks . . .

The Bush administration’s unwillingness to admit failure causes it to cling to a flawed approach rather than revisit its premises, adopt a new strategy or experiment with new tactics.

Once you get past the Bush bashing, we're on solid ground with Powers's analysis. Obama could do worse, although he could do better. We would recommend Bill Whittle's latest, BDS-free tour de force, "Forty Second Boyd and the Big Picture":

General Petraeus is not fighting the last war; he is fighting the next one. He did not arrive there and just hope for the best. He observed. He oriented. He decided. And he acted. And then he observed again to see what effect he had. And again. And again.

This is not firepower. This is not attrition. This is, rather, an intelligent, delicate, sophisticated, maneuver-based strategy. A light, but sometimes deadly touch. Fingertip control. Water flowing downhill, into the cracks which our enemy cannot fill.

As Michelle Obama said in her fundraising letter, "the improbable is now possible."

This just in (8:15 p.m.): Fox News projects John McCain will win the New Hampshire primary. Bill Kristol credits McCain's steadfast support of the war and the success of the surge.

Update: Whoops!

Update II: "Hillary Clinton won last night by putting together the voting coalition that has held Democratic frontrunners in good stead for 75 years."

The world is her village

It's a shame those two don't get along. Images of Hillary and Nouri from "Hillary Clinton's Iraq-Afghanistan photo album," mid-January 2007, photoshopped into the clip-on sunglasses of Tuck's "Senor Hand," who made a surprise visit to the studio this morning.

"If it seems odd that members of a bitterly divisive and relatively do-nothing Congress should criticize the Iraqi government for similar flaws," writes Neo-Neocon with ironic understatement in "Finessing the surge" -- a Pajamas Media must-read analysis of how the Beltway mind works -- "it’s just another example of the human tendency to counsel 'do as I say, not as I do'”:

But something funny happened on the way to General Petraeus’s September 2007 report to Congress: the surge begin to work.

And now the Democrats face a different prospect if the trend continues: they may have to acknowledge that they were wrong in opposing the surge (in certain cases, in writing it off before it truly began). They might even lose the 2008 election as a result. Or, if victorious, they would have to make tough decisions about how to prosecute the rest of the war. If the latter occurs they will, ironically, find themselves in what might be called “the Nixon position” -- that is, they’ll have to decide how to finish a difficult war that another party’s administration began.

We're not normally a big fan of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's but can't help nodding in agreement with his exasperated response yesterday to uppity Democrats' calling for his ouster:

“There are American officials who consider Iraq as if it were one of their villages, for example Hillary Clinton and Carl Levin . . . This is severe interference in our domestic affairs.”

Had he been doing his homework on the woman who would be Leader of the Free World, Mr. al-Maliki would have realized that for Hillary "It Takes a Village" Clinton, not only Iraq, but the entire world is her village.