The Register's Endorsement

I don't pay a whole lot of attention to the horse race, but it's sorta hard to avoid these days. Every once in a while something jumps out and grabs my attention -- the insufferable demeanor of that horrible woman who moderated the Iowa debates for instance. As I indicated in an earlier post she embodied many of the most repulsive aspects of modern liberalism.

She's the editor of the DesMoines Register and I was interested in seeing just how she would justify her obvious preference for the Hildebeast. Well, the endorsement is out and it confirms my worst apprehensions. Here is her take on the Democratic field:

No fewer than three candidates would, by their very identity, usher the nation to the doorstep of history. Should the party offer the nation the chance to choose its first woman president? Or its first black president? Or its first Latino president?

There it is, folks, identity politics at its most blatant. We are supposed to be for Hillary or Obama or Richardson not because they are plausible heads of the executive branch of government [actually Gov Richardson does have some credentials in that area] but first and foremost because of their gender or ethnic identity. What counts most with Hillary is putting a woman in the White House. Vote for Obama to prove that you are a good person and not a racist. Vote for Bill Richardson because his mother is Hispanic.

Hillary's secondary characteristics, as presented in the editorial, are also more liberal hogwash. First there is the victim trope -- she's endured personal challenges and is therefore "tough". Give me a break! Lots of people have suffered personal traumas, and to a large extent Hillary's have been self-made. That's no recommendation for high office, just a sympathy ploy for every woman who has been done wrong by the man in her life.

And then there is the bipartisanship -- Hillary has been civil to other senators and is actually on speaking terms with some Republicans, although there are no specific accomplishments to which the editorial can point. Liberals love bipartisanship because that means that the measures they promote are sure to be unexamined. Moreover, liberals usually define bipartisanship as people agreeing with them. Political dialogue is not supposed to be based on agreement. It is vigorous disagreement in which the weak points of positions are exposed and a forge in which partisans on all sides discover what is and is not acceptable to the people they represent. Bipartisanship is government without controversy, and that is a sure prescription for bad and oppressive government.