|
|
|
|
|
|
|
January 26 2008
MIM predicted that Black voters would switch from Clinton to Obama when they realized he is Black. The South Carolina primary proves this point. An exit poll shows that 8 in 10 of both male and female Blacks voted for Obama on January 26 while Clinton and Edwards divided the white vote.(1) Clinton originally led among Black voters in the polls. These facts are important for what they say about Amerika.
MIM predicted the switch of Black voters months in advance, but the Clintons came up with an even better scientific feat by winning New Hampshire. Polls showed that Clinton was down by about 10 points in the polls, but after losing the white vote in Iowa, Clinton won the white vote in New Hampshire, in the space of two days.
To grasp victory, Bill Clinton came up with a very smart line that he "cannot make" Hillary Clinton younger. Then there was a controversy over "iron my shirt!" by some male chauvinists who made it into the media. Finally, Hillary Clinton cried. These three items in no way struck an issue between Obama and Clinton, but all struck at female identity. This worked because the Clintons minimized differences with Obama.
Clinton carried the female vote in New Hampshire and because females are a disproportionate share of Democratic primary voters, she carried the white vote as well. Obama won the New Hampshire male vote 40% to 29%, but lost overall.(2)
MIM found this to be an exciting lesson in instant political sociology from the Clintons. Clinton lost the white vote in Iowa but showed how to win it back five days later in New Hampshire. The key was an appeal to female identity. That is exciting, but maybe more exciting is that we would not know this truth if the Clintons had not tried something out in practice. They demonstrated the nature of truth production, that things left on the drawing board are only speculative. It was by trying and winning New Hampshire that the Clintons showed they know better than Obama how the world works.
Polls show that voters see no ideological difference between Clinton and Obama, with both seen as equally liberal. So what we saw was a clinic in applied science.
There was no exciting lesson in issues or ideology. Instead, what the Clintons did in New Hampshire showed something about the population of Amerika. Importantly, the primary elections do show something about the people the phony communist parties hold such hopes in, with their misguided patriotism.
Another lesson we can learn is from looking at Black female voters. Using MIM language, they said the "principal contradiction" is not gender, but race. Already political consultant Dick Morris has predicted that Obama's South Carolina victory will hurt Obama now, because whites will react, despite Obama's earlier victory in white Iowa.(3) Usually a victory as in South Carolina would give a candidate momentum, so it will be interesting to see if Morris is correct.
If there were an exploited class, two evenly matched candidates could appeal to class issues to win over the exploited. Rarely do we see such an even race as between Obama and Clinton, but the game is now centering on identity politics, not class policy differences of a reformist sort.
The ineffective pseudo-communists and social-democrats should look at what does work in U.$. politics to learn about the population they worship. The Clintons put something into practice on a much larger scale than anything the left-wing of parasitism has done. We should learn from the success of the Clintons' practice. If these candidates could get anywhere with anti-militarism or pro-environment issues, they would do it, but they do not, and that also says something about Amerikans.
In other election news, we find it significant that Jerry Kiley has attacked John McCain's Vietnam War record, despite McCain's serving five years in Vietnamese prison for his attacks on the Vietnamese people. "Kiley claims information McCain gave to the North Vietnamese led to an increase in U.S. planes being shot down."(4)
The same thing happened to John Kerry in the 2004 election in reference to his swift boat service in Vietnam. These attacks help people realize that patriotism is political. Even better, from the international proletariat's perspective, such attacks diminish the appeal of serving in the u.$. military. Heroic service or not, someone will come along and attack one's service on patriotic grounds, apart from the anti-militarist movement. Patriotism is an infinitely irrational pit in the imperialist countries.
In contrast with the good news from the anti-McCain camp, Clinton and Obama both have potential in expanding cannon-fodder recruiting. Obama in particular with his "change comes from below" mantra will end up making oppressed nationalities feel good about serving in the military.
We wish the left-wing of parasitism would learn the lessons Bill Clinton taught about political sociology and unlearn what Obama has taught. If Obama is in contention with "change comes from below" and some Republicans are in contention with "wealth trickles down from above," it is time to say as MIM that "change comes to the exploiter populations from outside." Beware MIM's would-be competitors saying the same thing as Obama.
Notes:
1. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g-mb4b3T9hE_91fQD51y46cNreKQD8UDSQ000
2. http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/18/mind-the-gender-gap/?ref=opinion
3. http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/DickMorrisandEileenMcGann/2008/01/23/how_clinton_will_win_the_nomination_by_losing_south_carolina
"Hillary Clinton will undoubtedly lose the South Carolina primary as African-Americans line up to vote for Barack Obama. And that defeat will power her drive to the nomination."
4. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hvU2aySedy4V9L0MEsq_HIpEtjqgD8U6LIPO0