Political Pyro

Just before the South Carolina primary, Bill Clinton was slammed as a “racist” for saying two things:

First, Bill Clinton compared the historical candidacy of Barack Obama with the other historical candidacy of Jesse Jackson. In hindsight, the comparison seems fairly benign, but the Obama campaign tarred and feathered the former President with a charge so outrageous, it threatened Clinton’s legacy.

Second, Bill Clinton refered to the media’s infatuation with Obama as a “fairytale”. Again, the Obama campaign struck with a vengeance. Their accusation was that the former President was somehow labeling a “black” candidate’s aspirations for the presidency the equivalent of a pipe dream. The over-stretched accusation therefore could be translated into the belittlement of all black candidates as being something of a joke.

Talk about a stretch. But somehow, it worked. The Obama campaign succeeded (with the help of the mainstream media) in turning America’s first black president into a despicable racist based on flimsy assertions. This brilliant character assassination spelled the beginning of the end of Hillary Clinton’s candidacy.

Recently, political master, Bill Clinton, said the following:

“Suppose for example you’re a voter and you have candidate X and you have candidate Y. Candidate X agrees with you on everything but you don’t think that person can deliver on anything. Candidate Y disagrees with you on half the issues but you believe that on the other half, the candidate will be able to deliver. For whom will you vote?

This is the kind of question that I predict — and this has nothing to do with what’s going on now — but I am just saying if you look at five, 10, 15 years from now, you may actually see this delivery issue become a serious issue in Democratic debates because it is so hard to figure out how to turn good intentions into real changes in the lives of the people we represent.”

Clearly, Bill Clinton is referring to Obama and McCain although within the same breath he denies it. What was the point of saying this in the first place? Many pundits have been wondering, but with minimal analysis, I note that McCain in this scenario is “Candidate Y” — and Obama is “Candidate X”.

Unlike many, I don’t believe Bill Clinton makes as many gaffes as the pundits would have us believe. His political rhetoric is cold and calculating with the precision of a surgical knife…

But also consider this: Years ago, one of my college professors laid out a map of Paris on an overhead projector and then aligned with it a map of the constellation. The result was a near perfect fusion of monuments and stars in an uncanny synchronicity that awakened students’ eyes to the possibility that Paris had been built as a monument to the Heavens. The map of Paris was in fact a map of the stars with as much architectural perfection as the great pyramids or Stonehenge. Was my professor’s revelation accurate?
No. My political science professor was a master of deception. He played with our minds only to prove to us that despite our relative intelligence, we can be played.

A map of Paris with thousands of dots will undoubtedly match up to a map with billions. To prove his point at the end of the great head game, he simply moved one of the maps over an inch to show that they aligned again.

My professor taught me that politics is about deception. More accurately, it is about winning, and deception is a vital key — as is defining your opponent before he has a chance to define himself.

Was Bill Clinton comparing Barack Obama with Malcolm X?

I wouldn’t be surprised. And if the shoe fits….