Today on Blogcritics
Home » Hoisted on Their Politically-Correct Petards

Hoisted on Their Politically-Correct Petards

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

What goes around certainly does come around. The first black president’s wife isn’t black enough to be immune from charges of bigotry.

Isn’t it delicious?

I am, of course, speaking of the recent Democrat race war.

Now, let’s be fair. When Hillary Clinton praised Lyndon Johnson for signing the Civil Rights Act, she wasn’t subordinating Martin Luther King to him, nor do her husband’s initials suddenly stand for Bull Connor because he likened Obama’s policies to a fairytale (what was the big deal? Was he questioning Obama’s sexuality?). There were no racial overtones.

That’s the beauty of it.

The Clintons have long been proud members of the politically-correct thought police, playing the race card, dividing one American against another, seizing upon opportunities to cast opponents as bigots. Their ilk never shy away from playing pin the racial tale on the honky, claiming that traditionalist criticism of black figures, even when legitimate, is racism. It’s a good way to silence opponents who you can’t actually beat in debates.

Hillary also didn’t shrink from playing the sexism card in this campaign, talking about the “all-boys club” after she came under scrutiny in that Democrat debate a while back. It sure was convenient then.

Because of such people, many Americans walk on eggs, knowing that breaking one means the Imus treatment is nigh. Because of such people, many other Americans – mainly black folks – have become paranoid, believing that you’ll know when a white person is being racist because his lips will be moving.

This atmosphere has claimed many victims, such as scientist James Watson, sportscaster Jimmy “the Greek” Snyder, Rush Limbaugh (Jim McNabb comment), and Washington, D.C., official David Howard (used the word “niggardly”). But, just occasionally, this miasma extracts tribute from those who helped spew it. Bill Clinton was the first black president; now he’s as white as a sheet overnight. It’s poetic.

But, in this presidential race, the person most hurt by this political correctness isn’t Madame Clinton. Rather, it’s John Edwards, Little Boy Sue himself.

While many talk about how his presidential aspirations are in vain, no one explains why. After all, he has greater “experience” than Clinton, the youthful bearing and oratory of Obama, and believability as an agent of change. Not only that, he was within a hair’s breadth of the vice-presidency four years ago. So why is he almost just an asterisk in this campaign?

It’s because his resume lacks a prerequisite: Sufficient melanin content or an XX chromosome configuration.

Our nation in general and the Democrat constituency in particular has an affirmative-action mentality. This is why we’re in the midst of a frenzy over two very empty vessels. The media won’t talk about it much, but millions of citizens would love to be part of history in electing the first woman or “black” president. Most of these people don’t really understand what policies are advocated by these two politicians, and they don’t care. The packaging – female or multiracial – is pleasing enough to the politically-correct eye to blind them to other concerns. Thoroughly imbued with a fashionable prejudice, they just believe that somehow, some way, having a member of a certain group in office will make America a land of sweetness and light.

So that’s our state in 2008. Clinton can’t criticize Obama because political correctness makes it perilous to attack blacks; he can’t criticize her because political correctness makes it risky to hit girls. Neither will criticize John Edwards because political correctness has made him irrelevant. They’ve created a monster they can’t control. I only wish it could consume them all.

Powered by

About Selwyn Duke

  • wildnfree

    A great big AMEN to that last line, I just hope it
    doesn’t consume us first.

  • SteveS

    (Edwards) was within a hair’s breadth of the vice-presidency four years ago. So why is he almost just an asterisk in this campaign?

    People didn’t like him then, when people voted, they were voting for Gore. To assume that he has no chance now because he is a white male is pretty funny.

    Clinton can’t criticize Obama because political correctness makes it perilous to attack blacks; he can’t criticize her because political correctness makes it risky to hit girls.

    They criticize each other all the time.

    It’s a good thing this article is under Opinion because there isn’t much in the way of facts.

  • Dr Dreadful

    It’s a good thing this article is under Opinion because there isn’t much in the way of facts.

    There seldom is in Selwyn’s screeds, Steve.

    What I want to know is why John Kerry decided to publicly fart in his former running mate’s face by backing Obama instead?

  • STM

    Not much in the way of grammatical sense in the headline, either.

    The original and correct saying is “hoist his own petard”, not bloody hoisted.

    Come on Sel, if you are going to be a WASP champion of the Right, at least get the lingo right old boy.

  • Clavos

    “For ’tis the sport to have the engineer
    Hoist with his own petar.”

    Act III, Sc. iv

    The speaker is Hamlet. A “petar” was a type of mine.

    There is some disagreement among scholars as to the spelling of petar. Some spell it with a “d,” but both my copy of Bartlett’s and my Norton Unabridged Shakespeare spell it as above.

  • STM

    Thanks Clav, oh font of knowledge regarding all all things Shakespearean.

    For a native Spanish speaker, you know a fair bit about the lingo :)

  • STM

    Mexico rocks!!

  • STM

    Yes, BTW, you are right .. a petard was a type of military mine used in Shakespeare’s time to blow doors off or walls down.

    It is speculated the Bard spelled it wrong. The word original derives from a French word meaning to “break wind”, or fart.

    That must be the small explosion.

    So you can’t be hoisted on it. You can only be shot up in the air – “hoist”.

  • Clavos

    Thanks, mate for the further elucidation. You are quite right; the Bard DID misspell petard.

    In fact, there are many misspellings in his works. At one time, some of them were used as “proof” that he didn’t write the particular piece in question. As you know, a controversy still rages among the lit wonks as to whether or not ol’ Will actually wrote all that is attributed to him.

    But to me, the really interesting aspect of the misspellings is that some of them, because of the power, beauty and majesty of his writing, have become by virtue of being his, the correct spelling of that word.

    Many of his misspellings, it is believed, (and in some cases, is obvious) were deliberate – for effect, or for a better sound to the spoken word.

    Ironically, one of the most misspelled words (by others) in the English language is his name.

  • Jet in Columbus

    Dear God! the maniacle atheists have struck again??? Holy spelling bee Batman!

  • Danske

    Yes, the liberals cannot put the genie back in the bottle. No white male will ever be accepted in the Dem party from here on out….nominating an evil white male would be “retro” and “in the past” to them. Good luck liberals…your pool of viable presidential candidates to come down the pike just shrunk 100 fold. Will the last white male to leave that quasi-communist party please remember to turn off the lights!

  • Dr Dreadful

    Clav #9: Shakespeare mis-spelled nothing. There was no standardized English spelling in his day, or indeed until about the mid-17th century when the first dictionaries were published. There are even numerous different spellings of Shakespeare’s name in contemporary documents, including his own signature.

    You are correct, though, in asserting that the way Shakey spelled some words has become their standard spelling. The man even coined hundreds of words of his own that we still use today.

    On the ‘who was Shakespeare?’ controversy, I tend to take the view that it matters not one jot whether it was Shakespeare, Marlowe, Edward de Vere or Edmund Blackadder. Whatever the actual identity of the man who put quill to paper was, we still have a canon of wonderful literature.

  • bliffle

    Say it isn’t so!

    All these years I thought “Petard”was a flag staff with a pointed tip. So that being ‘hoist’ like a flag upon ones own ‘petard’ was rather like getting a coat-rack shoved up ones….

  • Clavos

    “Clav #9: Shakespeare mis-spelled nothing.”

    That’s not quite true, Doc.

    Though there was much more variation in English spelling, word usage, and even grammar than there is today, the stage in the evolution of English as a language during which Shakespeare was ascendant is termed Early Modern English.

    It dated from about the middle of the fifteenth century to 1650, a little more than 30 years after the Bard’s death in 1616.

    Scholars agree that the Early Modern stage of English was distinguished by the beginning of standardization of the language, especially during the reign of James VI.

    Wikipedia notes that:

    “The standardization of English spelling falls within the Early Modern English period, and is influenced by conventions predating the Great Vowel Shift, explaining much of the non-phonetic spelling of contemporary Modern English.”

    So actually, by the standards of the day, Shakespeare did occasionally misspell, on the one hand.

    On the other hand, by virtue of the genius of his art, he also established not only the spelling of many words, but also their usage, and even coined many new words which live on today.

  • STM

    And he didn’t write a bad play either, just quietly.

  • Aaron


    Many people that don’t like politically correct descriptors live in a “vanilla” world where they only engage with people exactly like them. White husband, white wife, dog, 2.5 kids, suburban neighborhood at the end of a cul-de-sac.

    What world are you people living in? This is not the 1950s.

    And about the Clintons, what exactly is your issue with him? That he lied about cheating on his wife? Kind of strange to hold a 10 year grudge for something his wife has apparently forgiven him for.