And she owes her victories to racists, Matthew Yglesias says accusingly. So there!

Or was it really the work of Rush Limbaugh?

Liza Abater thinks so, and she’s worried about next November.

Hugh Hewitt does not agree with El Rushbo’s strategy, and remarks bitterly.

If Hillary ekes out close wins, stays alive, gains the nomination and the White House, will Rush hold the Bible at her Inauguration?

—————————–

My posting on Rush Limbaugh’s “vote for Hillary” strategy.

Rush Limbaugh argues that conservatives in Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Vermont should vote for Hillary Clinton today.

As usual, Rush is right. It’s better to keep Hillary alive in order to keep the democrats fighting right through their convention, which may even possibly feature the traditional democrat bloodbath.

And Obama is decidedly scarier than Hillary. He is a talented demagogue of extremely unsavory ultra-left background, who lucked into an unexpected seat in the Senate courtesy of Jeri Ryan‘s divorce, then was propelled right into presidential candidate status by one speech at the democrat convention in 2004.

McCain probably has a better chance of beating Hillary. And I’m not sure myself that we aren’t better off just taking our medicine in the form of Hillary and going into opposition for four years. Bad as she is, Hillary is a known quantity. Hillary will do a couple of very annoying leftist things, but will basically govern (the same way Bill did) by opportunistic and calculated triangulation. Obama is a comparatively unknown quantity, and has alarming abilities to gin up ecstatic emotionalism. We really don’t want Obama to win.

Jack Nicholson is supporting Hillary Clinton and has pitched in to support her campaign with this 1:18 video featuring excerpts from his own films.

Victor Davis Hanson explains the democrats’ fundamental disconnect with the ordinary American voter.

The forgotten American listens to Hillary and Barack and thinks all these promises are nice and well and good, but figures that they expect someone like herself to pay for all those programs for all those who chose to live life differently than she did—for whom in most cases there was as much or more chances than she had. She wants to pay taxes and help, but shrugs that those who receive think it’s never enough—resentment, not gratitude is their more appropriate response for government help. And she assumes that Hillary and Barak (sic), given what they make, don’t much care whether they pay a few thousand dollars more in their own taxes, and that they, like a John Edwards or John Kerry or Al Gore or Ted Kennedy, are rich enough to feel everyone else’s pain but her own.

Read the whole thing.

In case you missed it, here’s Hillary’s 3:00 AM telephone commercial.

0:30 video

Obama’s less-than-devastating response.

0:31 video

OK, we now know Obama is ready: ready to disarm, ready to withdraw, ready to surrender, even at 3:00 AM.

And what exactly was the experience Hillary had as First Lady that qualifies her?

Hotline On Call (including sound):

Slate’s John Dickerson asked the obvious question:

“What foreign policy moment would you point to in Hillary’s career where she’s been tested by crisis?” he said.

Silence on the call. You could’ve knit a sweater in the time it took the usually verbose team of Mark Penn, Howard Wolfson and Lee Feinstein, Clinton’s national security director, to find a cogent answer. And what they came up with was weak — that she’s been endorsed by many high ranking members of the uniformed military.

Andrew Sullivan thinks the democrats have arrived at the moment in the horror film when the evil monster has been killed and the audience breathes a sigh of relief, but…

We’re at that moment in the campaign that reminds me of a horror movie. There’s a kind of relief that the worst cannot happen, that the Clintons are politically dead, that our long national nightmare is over. The screen falls silent. We look at pleasant images: green grass, or a kitchen table scene, or a calm lovers’ embrace. But you know they have something left. They could come suddenly screaming back, like that hand out of the grave in Carrie or Glenn Close in the bathtub in Fatal Attraction. An Edwards endorsement? A March surprise?

Like Freddy or Jason, they still lurk, ready to pounce again. And the credits are yet to roll. Gulp.

Dr. Sanity has an excellent article discussing in detail the game both democrat candidates are playing.

You have to admit, it’s a bit strange that all these multimillionaires who have greatly benefited from the freedom and opportunity offered by this country are competing with each other to see who can yell the loudest that the American dream is lost?

What’s going on here is not just a case of pessimism about what America stands for; it is a deliberate, calculated attempt to manipulate and appeal to one of the worse aspects of human nature–primitive envy–and stoke the fires of resentment and entitlement.

The message from the Democatic presidential candidates is almost exactly identical and it is the same message their party has been promoting (except, of course, when THEY are in the White House) since the 60’s: Things are BAD! Poverty is INCREASING! DOOM DOOM DOOM! You foolish people out there only think you are content!

Don’t you know that there are people in this very country who are richer than you are? There are even (gasp!) people who are smarter, more talented, and happier than you could possibly ever be!

Is this fair? Is this something that we have to put up with in our politically correct, culturally diverse, and oh so egalitarian society? You don’t have to be satisfied with life, liberty and only the pursuit of happiness– WE CAN GUARANTEE HAPPINESS FOR YOU!

You only think this is a land of opportunity…but vote for ME and you will see how much MORE you will have!

And now we have Barack the Messiah, who manages to cloak this same old tired egalitarian message in his lovely rhetorical babblings about “hope”, and “change”, and “yes we can”–as if he were actually appealing to the best, instead of the worst within each of us.

It all reminds me of the scene in the movie “Key Largo” where Frank McCloud confronts the criminal thug, Johnny Rocco:

Frank McCloud: He knows what he wants. Don’t you, Rocco?
Johnny Rocco: Sure.
James Temple: What’s that?
Frank McCloud: Tell him, Rocco.
Johnny Rocco: Well, I want uh …
Frank McCloud: He wants more, don’t you, Rocco?
Johnny Rocco: Yeah. That’s it. More. That’s right! I want more!
James Temple: Will you ever get enough?
Frank McCloud: Will you, Rocco?
Johnny Rocco: Well, I never have. No, I guess I won’t.

We have become a country of thuggish Johnny Roccos.

The Democratic Party is there for all you unhappy people who want MORE–but who don’t want to work for it. They will tell you that you are entitled to it; that it is your right and that they will get it for you! Yes they can!

Read the whole thing.

Some people think so.

Dan Calabrese isn’t worried about Obama. In fact, he think conservatives should stand aside, smile, and let Obama take care of Hillary for us. Obama will be easy enough to deal with in the real campaign.

if you really look closely at Obama, it’s hard not to notice some disquieting things.

First, he rarely says anything of substance, and on the rare occasions when he does, it’s completely bizarre. He wants to meet with Mahmoud Ahmedinejad. He wants to invade Pakistan. He wants to “reward work instead of rewarding wealth,” because as we all know, work and wealth are in a perpetual state of war with each other.

Maybe he’s better off just talking about “change” and “the audacity of hope,” and denouncing “cynicism.” He’s playing to his own strengths when he goes big on the rhetoric and small on the substance.

Second, people have weird reactions to him. The Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto chronicled last week in his Best of the Web Today column how many times people have fainted at Obama rallies – almost like a charismatic service at a Pentecostal church, except that Pentecostals start fainting and speaking in tongues by the power of the Holy Spirit. What is doing it to them at Obama rallies? Maybe it’s whatever creepy thing made MSNBC’s Chris Matthews start to feel a thrill up his leg when he heard Obama speak. That’s just disturbing.

Third, and very much playing to the whole cult-of-personality thing surrounding Obama, people seem to see him as whatever they want him to be. Have you noticed something about the way Obama looks in pictures? Far more frequently than other politicians, Obama is photographed from an angle that looks up at him. It makes him look that much more towering in his stature, and plays into the notion of him as this all-powerful force of change. He looks the part, too. If you take a picture of Hillary from ground level, she looks like a female Gestapo officer. Obama looks like the man with the plan – even though he has no plan.

Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, Obama is endorsed by Oprah Winfrey. This is no surprise, of course. Obama likes to say things that sound good and mean absolutely nothing. If he and Winfrey are not a match made in Heaven, I don’t know what is.

Add to all this the fact that Obama has very little experience in Washington, and has the most liberal voting record in the Senate, and the reasons not to elect him start filling out a very long and compelling list. We need to talk about all this.

But not yet!

Until at least March 4, when he has a chance to deal a fatal blow to Hillary in the Texas and Ohio primaries, I’m lovin’ me some Obama. Change we can believe in! I am so there. And if Hillary lives to fight another day, I’ll love Obama a little longer – all the way to the Democratic National Convention in August if need be.

The man is giving the Clintons the shellacking of a lifetime. Ever since Hillary first invaded our national consciousness in 1992, she’s been trying to figure out a way to become president, and conservatives have been hoping she could be stopped. Obama’s stopping her. Let the man do his job.

Then we can start helping John McCain point out that Obama is liberal, shallow and weird. We can start reminding people that tax increases don’t help the economy, surrender doesn’t win a war and socialized health care doesn’t make anyone better.

There will be plenty of time for that. First thing’s first.

Elizabeth Wurtzel contemplates the messianic Obama, but the feminist in her is rooting for Hillary.

I’ve been told that I no longer need to do yoga, take up Pilates, or study Kaballah, and I can even stop listening to Bruce Springsteen. Apparently 45 minutes at a Barack Obama rally — preceded by two hours and 45 minutes of waiting in the snow outside to get in — will be all it takes to change my life. Forever. An open mind, a free spirit, a loving heart, a renewed appreciation for democracy — and possibly even thin thighs — will be mine for keeps, if I just take in the junior senator from Illinois at a high-school gymnasium in Waukesha or a Nascar track in Pocono or an arena in Dallas. In less time than it takes to get through a single session of psychotherapy, Mr. Obama can cure me. …

We see Hillary, we see Barack, and we see our own version of hell: Here is this amazing woman, top of her class, implausible marriage to impossible man, works as hard as the day is long, masters all the forms and spreadsheets of governing, even manages to raise a pretty darn good kid — and then along comes this guy, this groovy Obamarama, with his pleasing mien, his high style, his absolute fabulousness, and he wants the top floor, corner office that she earned.

And women — women have seen this movie, women have heard this story, women know the drill, have had their manicured fingers ready to ring that particular fire alarm for years now. Women, finally, will say no to that. Real women don’t care what Caroline Kennedy and Maria Shriver with their easy words and easy lives have to say about any of this. No one with a job takes advice from someone with a chef.

Right now, it looks like Barack Obama will be the nominee. Hillary Clinton is unlikely to win any more primaries for a few more weeks, and at that point, it may be too late for this championship season. But pundits count her out at their own peril. That woman is a force of nature. One of these years, Hillary is going to the White House. If she has to win every single vote one by one, she’ll do it. If she has to take hostages, hold a gun to the head of every voter as he enters the booth, she’ll do that too. She may even cry.

Never underestimate Hillary Clinton.

Read the whole thing.

Tony Blankley explains that Hillary still has a few tricks up her sleeve which may yet sink the Zombie-master Obama.

Starting about a week ago, we started seeing references in the national media (ABC, The New York Times, Los Angeles Times) to Obama spawning a “cult of personality” — a theme that had existed back in Illinois for some time but mysteriously didn’t substantially appear in the national media until about Super Tuesday. The maxim in political strategy is always to go at your opponent’s strength.

If you turn him on that, the battle is over. So, the cult of personality perfectly targets his strength: that Obama has a wonderful personality. The Clintons (presumably) are suggesting, in effect, that he may be delectable, but he’s not electable; that it is unhealthy to adore a leader — undemocratic, in fact.

But beyond that are dark hints of yet to be revealed facts about Obama. I was chatting with a senior Clinton surrogate in a cable TV green room late last week — a former Clinton White House senior appointee. He mentioned to me that, while they couldn’t bring it up, Obama said (unspecified) things back when he was in the Illinois Senate that may be on news videotape. He said it was way beyond what a general election electorate could swallow (implicitly: too leftish for the public). Obama is just not electable, he suggested.

Peggy Noonan contemplates the situation of the two parties from a somewhat higher intellectual ground.

Republicans:

On the Republican side an embrace, but an awkward and unfinished one. It’s like the man-hug the pol at the podium now feels he must give to the man he’s just introduced. They used to just shake and say, “Thanks, Bob,” and go to the podium. Now they embrace, with an always apparent self-consciousness. Can you imagine JFK doing this? Or Reagan?

It is this kind of embrace many in the Republican party are giving John McCain. He has real supporters. He keeps winning. But he’s not getting even close to half the vote, as the presumptive nominee should. And he has been at odds with his party on so many things. …

Mr. McCain seems to me to have two immediate problems, both of which he might address. One is that he doesn’t seem to much like conservatives, and never has. They can’t help admire him, but they’ve disagreed with him on so many issues, and when they bring this up his demeanor tends to morph into the second problem: He radiates, he telegraphs, a certain indignation at being questioned by people who’ve never had to vote in Congress and make a deal. He’s like Moe Greene in “The Godfather,” when Michael Corleone tells him he’s going to buy him out. “Do you know who I am? I’m Moe Greene. I made my bones when you were going out with cheerleaders.” I’ve been on the firing line, punk. I am the voice of surviving conservatism.

This doesn’t always go over so well. Mr. Giuliani seems to know Mr. McCain is Moe Greene. Mr. Huckabee probably thought “The Godfather” was kinda violent. Mr. Romney may be thinking to himself, But Michael Corleone won in the end, and had better suits.

Democrats:

All parties, all movements, need men and women who will come forward every decade or so to name tendencies within that are abusive or destructive, to throw off the low and grubby. Teddy’s speech in this regard was a barnburner. He went straight against the negative and bullying, hard for the need to find inspiration again.

He is an old lion of his party, a hero of the base. But people do what they know how to do, and objects at rest tend of stay at rest, and Teddy has long led a comfortable life as a party panjandrum who knew to sit back and watch as the dog barked and the caravan moved on. In a way he seemed to rebel against his own tendencies. He put himself on the line.

“I love this country,” he said, “I believe in the bright light of hope and possibility. I always have.”

As a conservative I would say Ted Kennedy has spent much of his career being not just wrong about the issues but so deeply wrong, so consistently and reliably wrong that it had a kind of grandeur to it. So wrong that I cannot actually think of a single serious policy question on which I agreed with him. But I remember the night President Reagan spoke of Sen. Kennedy’s brother at a fund-raiser for the JFK Library, and I remember the letter Reagan got from Teddy. “Your presence itself was such a magnificent tribute to my brother. . . . The country is well served by your eloquent graceful leadership, Mr. President.” He ended it, “With my prayers and thanks for you as you as you lead us through these difficult times.”

Liberals are rarely interested in pointing out, and conservatives by and large may not know, but everyone who knows Teddy Kennedy knows that he holds a deep love for his country, that he feels a reverence for the presidency and a desire that America be represented with grace abroad and stature at home. He has seen administrations come and go. And maybe much of what he’s learned came forward, came together, this week.

His principled and uncompromising rebellion seemed to me a patriotic act, and adds to the rising tide of Geffenism. When David Geffen broke with Mrs. Clinton last summer, and couched his disapproval along ethical lines, he was almost alone among important Democrats. It took some guts. Now others are joining his side. Good.