By Selwyn Duke

After Barack Hussein Obama’s win in Iowa, many in the media were speaking of Hillary Clinton’s imminent demise.  It might have seemed that in an effort to manufacture a story, her epitaph had been written prematurely.  Yes, Obama was poised to duplicate his resounding Iowa victory in New Hampshire, but Lady Macbeth was still ahead nationally by an average of about 20 points, a margin she had held since the campaign’s start.  Yet, Obama has now leap-frogged Clinton in South Carolina polls and, more significantly, runs even with her nationally in the latest Gallup poll.   

For my part, I have no use for either individual.  In fact, I even have trouble speaking of them as if they are real people.  By that I mean people like most of us, people driven by something more than blind political ambition, people who don’t subordinate the good of their country to personal advancement.   

Clinton’s slide is precipitous enough to have evoked tears yesterday (I don’t believe she was crying for anyone but herself), but the last chapter hasn’t yet been written.  Obama is riding a wave, and, for all we know, it may crest soon. 

Yet Obama’s rise is easily explained.  In general, voters make decisions on an emotional basis, and this is never truer than when the liberal electorate is at issue.  This is style over substance, a phenomenon that explains these empty suits’ prominence to begin with.  It surely isn’t intellectual or ideological depth that animates their acolytes, as these candidates offer nothing on the stump but the usual bromides about universal health care and that magic word, "change."

And in this battle of the pretty packaging, Obama is king to Clinton’s court jester.  They’re both propagandists, but Obama delivers his lines with aplomb and vigor.  He’s a natural-born demagogue — like Slick Willie — while she’s a wanna-be.  And that’s the closest thing to a compliment a socialist in sheep’s clothing will ever get from me. 

Obama also has that rock-star persona, which, unfortunately, plays well.  He’s energizing young voters especially, for he’s younger, cooler and better looking than she who would be Harridan-in-Chief.

This is where I just have to emit a sigh.  Winston Churchill said "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter" for a reason.  Just think about how support for various candidates waxes and wanes.  What does this tell us?  It means a good percentage of the electorate switches its allegiance with the wind.

This means they have no idea what the candidates stand for or why they support their phony du jour.

Consider that a few months ago, Obama wasn’t even close enough to Clinton to eat her dust, now he’s the left’s fair-haired boy.  Why?  Are his positions different?  Have hers changed?  Has he gained valuable "experience" these last few months?

No, the only thing that really changes is the way these swing voters’ neurons misfire.

In the general election it’s no different.  Conventional wisdom tells us that, regardless of who or what is nominated, 40 percent of the electorate will vote Republican and 40 percent Democrat.   It’s that 20 percent in the middle that will determine the outcome.

Some may cast swing voters as open-minded individuals who vote for the person, not the party, but that’s piffle.  No one is less enamored of the mainstream candidates than I am, and there’s no party loyalty here.  Still, there are profound differences between the Republican and Democrat presidential contenders in our time; there are their positions on abortion, anti-marriage, immigration, and Supreme Court nominations, just to mention a few.

In other words, a person who can’t decide between the Republicans and Democrats till the last minute either doesn’t know what the parties stand for or has no conception of proper governance.  Although such individuals may fool themselves into thinking otherwise, they are usually making their decisions on superficial bases, such as looks, personality or media hype. 

It’s much like a man who can’t decide between two romantic interests but nevertheless believes he has to get married on November 4th.  He just has to.  That’s what everyone says, after all.  So, then, when the time comes, he just goes for the belle who excites him the most at the moment.

But that’s not how good marriages — or good presidents — are made.

It’s much like the film critic who said he voted for both Reagan and Clinton.  This is akin to supporting both Milton Friedman and Karl Marx, Christianity and atheism, freedom and tyranny.  Oh, yes, Reagan and Clinton did have something in common: They both were charming and carried themselves well.

That’s the point.

This is why I encourage people to proceed with voting the way they should with marriage: Don’t do it until you’re mature and ready.  Otherwise, you’re just choosing the prettiest face . . . for all of us.

                                                                               Protected by Copyright