Wednesday, May 21, 2008

O Mama

I've read a number of posts from various people touting one candidate or another this primary season... In light of last night's results, I saw something from Mark Steyn that makes sense to me.

I really have to wonder why any Sikh who supports the Democrats in the US, would abandon H. Rodham Clinton to support B. Hussein Obama?

BHO just seems too much like a "Johnny Come Lately", for me, and it seems for increasing numbers of Democrats and Americans, who generally don't trust him either.

HRC has supported Sikhs consistently as far as I can tell, along with her husband, while BHO referred to her disparagingly as the "Senator from Punjab". Instead of following the herd perhaps Sikhs should remember that a defining trait of Sikhs generally is to not forget a favour or a friend.

In my opinion, the Clintons have been friends of the Sikh community for years, and I am neither a Republican or a Democrat.

From The Corner,
Moving Barackwards [Mark Steyn]

Byron's analysis of the Clinton/Obama numbers is very sound, but I wonder if in dividing primary season into quarters he doesn't miss a cruder point: For the last three months, Mrs Clinton has been deemed to be in trouble and been urged ever more frantically to pack it in and get the hell out. Yet the more Senator Obama has been the nominee presumptive, the more Democrat voters have refused to warm up to him. In Kentucky, he lost not just the usual groups by the usual margins - white working-class men by a gazillion per cent, etc - but Mrs Clinton also won college graduates and "the young": two groups allegedly especially star-struck by the Obamessiah.

There's no precedent in modern primary history for a candidate growing weaker* the more his nomination becomes inevitable. His boast of finally getting a majority of pledged delegates - or whatever cockamie Democrat arithmetical milestone he reached last night - felt like a steam train running out of coal. He's still moving uphill, just about, but ever slower ...and slower ...and

If I were a party bigwig, I'd be unnerved by some of these numbers. The media have fallen for Senator Obama, but the louder they trill "I'm in love, I'm in love, I'm in love, I'm in love, I'm in love with a wonderful guy!", the more Democratic voters refuse to singalong.

By the way, if Hillary had been campaigning the way she's doing now this time last year instead of doing the queenlier-than-thou Barbra Streisand routine, she'd have won.

[UPDATE: *Poorly phrased: I should have said there's no precedent for a candidate getting "so weak". Obviously, presumptive nominees from Mondale to Dole managed to frost up the base as primary season wore on - but not to this degree, and not to the point where 50% of Democrat primary voters in Kentucky tell pollsters they wouldn't vote for Obama in November.]

05/21 07:52 AM

Technorati Tags: , , ,


Jodha said...


You write: In my opinion, the Clintons have been friends of the Sikh community for years, and I am neither a Republican or a Democrat.

Like you, I am neither a Republican nor Democrat, but I do wonder what exactly did the Clintons do for the Sikhs?

Reemas said...

Clearly Clinton is the Sayesha of American Idol, she should give way or public will vote her off.


Kaptaan said...

I said the Clintons have been friends of the Sikhs for some time, which is true considering that Sikhs were specifically included in White House gatherings or discussion by the Democrats under the Clintons, particularly around the law Bill Clinton signed in 1993, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. It was also under Bill Clinton that the tradition of felicitating the Sikh community by the US President on Baba Nanak's birthday was instituted in 1993 as well. That's in addition to the friendship enjoyed by Giani Harbhajan Singh a prominent Sikh from New Mexico.