2008 June 28 Saturday
Bill Clinton To Barack Obama: Kiss My Ass

Bill Clinton is still very mad at Barack Obama because Obama's supporters painted Bill as racist.

It has long been known that Mr Clinton is angry at the way his own reputation was tarnished during the primary battle when several of his comments were interpreted as racist.

But his lingering fury has shocked his friends. The Democrat told the Telegraph: "He's been angry for a while. But everyone thought he would get over it. He hasn't. I've spoken to a couple of people who he's been in contact with and he is mad as hell.

"He's saying he's not going to reach out, that Obama has to come to him. One person told me that Bill said Obama would have to quote kiss my ass close quote, if he wants his support.

"You can't talk like that about Obama - he's the nominee of your party, not some house boy you can order around.

Barring some unforeseeable event Obama is going to become the next president. Bill Clinton will probably get even madder as his friends all try to kiss up to Obama.

Bill had black loyalties when they did not have a black choice. The overwhelming black loyalty for Obama demonstrates the truth of an old saying: blood runs thicker than water. This tendency to put genetic loyalties and other loyalties ahead of a rational evaluation of the candidates reduces the quality of the people who win elections. We are going to see more of this in the future.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2008 June 28 05:32 PM  Politics American Presidency

Stephen said at June 28, 2008 7:42 PM:

How does your theory of a more 'rational evaluation of the candidated' in the absence of genetic loyalties account for choices like George?


Stephen said at June 28, 2008 7:44 PM:

also, wouldn't the rational evaluation be a two way street - white voting for white and black for black? If that were the case I fail to see how Obama could become President.

Kyle said at June 28, 2008 7:52 PM:

Stephen, you are using logic. Please stop so our host can keep talking about "rational evaluation."

Brent Lane said at June 28, 2008 8:49 PM:

Stephen/Kyle- in my humble opinon, your comments indicate that you have only a crudely superficial understanding of this election cycle.

If I may direct your attention to the actual post, Mr. Parker said and I quote, "genetic loyalties and other loyalties". Like, for example, loyalty to a particular perception of the candidate's character.

In the case of the 2000 GOP primary, Bush was perceived as a 'regular guy' who's father just happened to have been President. When the general election came around, many independents were fed up with the Clintons and considered Gore as merely "Slick Willie's Third Term" (sound familiar?)

In 2004, the Dems nominated one of the worst major-party candidates in history, with whom practically no independent voter could identify. Dubya ended up winning by practically by default. No 'rational evaluation' here, either.

If you don't believe that "genetic loyalties and other loyalties" played a factor in Obama's defeat of Hillary, you aren't really paying attention.

Randall Parker said at June 28, 2008 10:32 PM:


Genetic loyalties: You seem confused. The Bushes have genetic loyalties to each other. But how do genetic loyalties explain Bush Jr or Bush Sr beating a white Democrat?

Rational evaluation as a two way street: I do not understand that comment. If rational evaluation were a two way street you would expect Obama could not become President? Can you explain your chain of logic here?


Stephen is using logic? Poorly.

Stephen said at June 29, 2008 12:16 AM:

Randall, you predict (1) a black president based in part on (2) your prediction that if blacks have a colour choice, they will vote for a black candidate. I'm merely pointing out that both predictions are mutually exclusive because the same genetic-loyalties would surely apply to white voters who will therefore be voting for the white candidate. Consequently, the winner of the election will be the white candidate because there are a lot more white voters than black voters.

Greg Meadows said at June 29, 2008 8:16 AM:

"Barring some unforeseeable event Obama is going to become the next president."

I am of the opinion that unforseeable events have a nasty way of manifesting themselves
when we least expect them. If you knew exactly what was going to happen, you would be like
the one eyed man in the kingdom of the blind. The ablility to predict the future is
very limited.

Dave said at June 29, 2008 8:40 AM:

? But Barack Obama is neither Black nor white?

Randall Parker said at June 29, 2008 9:15 AM:


A few possibilities explain what we see with black versus white voting habits:

1) Blacks are genetically more loyal to their group.


2) Blacks are told their genetic loyalty is okay while whites are fed steady propaganda to resist their genetic tendencies.


3) Whites have a greater intellectual capacity to see why they shouldn't weight genetic considerations so heavily.

My guess is #2 explains what we are seeing. Though #1 and #3 are probably at work as well.

The reason #2 is successful is in part because the white liberal status system has made noblesse oblige an important factor in winning status points among whites.

Randall Parker said at June 29, 2008 11:03 AM:


He's part black, albeit East African rather than West African. That makes him genetically much closer to West African American blacks than John McCain.

People feel more loyalty to their siblings than their cousins and toward their cousins than other people. It is the same idea here. The black voter expect a better deal from a half-black man who advertises his black identity than from a white man.

Gina said at June 30, 2008 7:38 AM:

Kudos to Bill Clinton. It disgusted me how the Obama campaign discredited Bill Clinton and used the race card against him. Clinton was a good President for 8 years. A President who accomplished a great deal, including 8 years of peace and prosperity. Obama is an upstart who hasn't really accomplished anything, except packaging himself, selling himself to the American public, and trying to buy the Presidency. Obama and his supporters have no credibility, they will say and do anything to get elected.

Svigor said at July 1, 2008 5:46 PM:

Though #1 and #3 are probably at work as well.

#1 is a popular misconception among race-realists but I see no evidence for it and significant evidence against. Black loyalty is a phenomenon dependent on black proximity to suckers (whites). I think blacks are less genetically predisposed than non-blacks to cooperation of any kind, including racial loyalty.

Audacious Epigone said at July 2, 2008 11:12 AM:


There is evidence in support of #1. From Pennsylvania going forward, exit pollsters queried voters not only on whether or not race influence how they voted, but also started tracking it by race (up to that point, they hadn't been doing so). Guess what? In all six states, blacks were more likely than whites to have their votes influenced by the race of the candidates.

Post a comment
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
Remember info?

Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright