Hillary Rodham-Clinton: The 45th President of the USA finally rises in uncontested seniority!

The 45th President of the USA finally rises in uncontested seniority!

 

It is said one speech makes not the man, I beg to differ one speech made the 44th President Barack Hussein Obama of the USA and it seems that history will repeat itself for one speech in my assessment has just made the 45th USA President, Hillary Rodham-Clinton.

 

The race for finalising the presidential nominee for the Democratic Party appears for some still up in air with California to make its voice heard with a tight race between Clinton and Sanders, yet I dare stick my neck out to call it in her favour.

 

I am not the only one to think that way but will be excused for asserting even Clinton with this speech engaged with her opponent the Republican presumptive nominee Donald Trump. She took the game beyond next week when she will be confirmed as the Democratic Party nominee, and fired the first salvo.

 

Have we just watched the 45th and first female president of the United States of America, Hillary Rodham-Clinton stepped up into her rightful place?

 

Having followed the unfolding race hitherto one would be forgiven for suggesting though we saw Clinton engage with others in the up-run to today we have never seen her step up in taking the lead to set the tone and establish the narrative for the 45th Presidential Race.

 

Tonight Clinton in very calm, astute and composed sense defined her campaign in unmasking the androgyny of a Trump campaign for the Whitehouse.

 

She turned Trumps ‘make America great” campaign on its head, in analysing the campaign, the man and his content in etched sardonic comedy of words. She unveils this campaign as anchored on a diaphragm of the common populist rhetoric of fear. A campaign crutched in makeshift twin pillars of an America that is unsafe and currently badly managed.

 

She remonstrates the campaign fallacious and undeniably bereft of truth. She argues this campaign in the true sense as of aim to tear America down rendering necessarily it unsafe. She reminds America, Donald Trump will bring more wars and make the USA hostile towards long standing national peace loving neighbours.

 

Clinton asserts it’s the very campaign of Trump laced with his ignorant blind-hate of Muslims that directly plays into the hands of fundamentalist formations such ISIS rendering them to comfortably garner empathy and support. She lectures Trump that America as a nation imbibes in its founding principles the right to freedom of association of religion and faith. She informs him since he clearly is oblivious to the fact that Muslims citizens serve the USA in all facets of its society even protecting the very borders where Trump wants to erect walls.

 

In order to understand the content of this campaign she burrows into the man Trump, who despite billionaire status remains a clinging cymbal of ignorance, indolent in pomp and arrogant in lack of knowledge.

 

She argues he leads a false campaign premised on a myth that the USA is on shaky grounds, it teeters on bad management under an Obama presidency and that it is in bad space on foreign relations praxis with more enemies than under Bush.

 

Clinton went to the heart of the Trump campaign, which is primarily informed, by ignorance and scaremonger tactics and crowned with what she wraps as reality TV trimmings. She tore through the façade of a claimed America in crisis, remonstrating a denial of the great work unfolding in the USA as led by this Democratic leadership.

 

She calls Donald Trump to come out of his Trump Reality TV Show and face the pressing challenges of a global context of politics in which real issues are on the table. She cites the naivety, total lack of coherent and systematic thinking or analysis of Trump’s grasp on foreign relations for answers on Syria.

 

Clinton in measured tone reminds America tonight of more than a decade of Donald Trumps words. She mocks his proverbial ostrich-head-in-hole or coffee-tin views on Syria, in which he devoid of thinking suggests maybe Syria must be made a free zone for ISIS. On another occasion Trump would suggest the deploying of tens of thousands of ground troops in Syria to fix the problem of the centre of the world. Clinton with this shows Americans the man who speaks before he thinks is clearly not having a plan for ISIS.

 

Rodham-Clinton unpacked the Trump Reality TV show; she unmasks the Trump, the racist, Islamaphobe, Trump the one with scant regard for America’s neighbours. She unveils Trump the chauvinist, who has ill regard for women but one who sees them as objects of pleasure and beauty contests. She calls him thin skinned whom as she delivers this speech is already tweeting.

 

Her analysis of the Trump Campaign sets the narrative of what a USA presidential contest in November will confirm. Clearly she dishes out, Trump, a lecture on what constitutes a prism or an epistemology of foreign relations for a nation that leads the world not just because it is the biggest economy, or for its military prowess but because Americans work hard to lead in entrepreneurship thus economically.

 

In a sense what Clinton said was not new, what made it significant is that it was done in precision sense, putting the true Trump in the face of Americans. She calls his ideas not different but dangerously incoherent. Meaning this man poses a threat by every stretch of the imagination.

 

This she lays before the USA electorate body in saying, this is my opponent somebody clearly inept of visionary outlook as evidenced in utter lack of any constructive policy or plan. However one who strings along nice and easy clichés that is coined devoid of pensive reflection. The 45th President of the USA says America cannot afford incoherent leadership at its helm.

 

This she takes to another level when she attempts psychoanalysis of the persona of Trump. Which she dovetails in declaring him temperamentally unfit. Clinton effectively says Trump deserves to be on mood control medication because his temperament renders him unstable one that  really needs medication. She therefore unequivocally suggests a USA with Trump at its helm who blurts stuff on his twitter account depending on his mood swings attest danger if he has access to the proverbial ‘football’ nuclear controls of America as president.

 

She cogently asks why America should trust a candidate who since Ronald Reagan never believed in America, for which he is on record.

 

 

There will off course be those who will ask why Clinton waited so late to take the lead in setting the narrative of what a great a USA is.

 

Perhaps the answer lies in the narrative of the 2016 campaign as set by the Republicans. Commentators are in unison that the 2016 presidential nominees for parties’ nominee was not the usual type. It was consistently a campaign evidenced for unorthodox, less structured, and empty of policy debate. The Republican Party nominations process set the tone for this content of the campaign that came to be defined as one of insults, denigration and all forms of sordid theatrics of nominee families being attack. It became what I term a gangster fight in which no rules applied and the rule book was drafted hour by hour of Trump’s media blurts.

 

While the Republican nominee contests set the tone for this campaign Trump filled it with his own content, which soon became difficult to manage in coherent discourse. He provided the narrative, he developed the content of this insult-ridden campaign in which the size of the male organ became the barometer of sensibility.

 

We saw how low Trump went as he teetered one from one low to the next. Content immanent in racist attacks against minorities evidenced in African American and Hispanics groups. He spared not women his wrath in calling them pigs. He ventured to opine on foreign nations that has no clue where these were located. He spit his vitriol on African leaders calling them lazy, great when it comes to sex and useless.

 

Clinton as a much more seasoned politician who has a much better grip on how the world is organised politically, economically if not militarily perhaps never felt at home in the Trump charade of a campaign. She therefore could not have a decent debate because the waters were muddled if not contaminated by the Trump poop.

 

She tonight wrested the debate of a future America and its choices for leadership from the dung and mud of what has come to define the campaign until now.

 

I shall concede Trump won the Republican Party mud-fight for party nominee. The key question remains can he contest and debate sensibly in an environment where insults and incoherent thinking is absent? My sense he was never able to and will not be able to, he loves a street brawl, where no rules abide. My guess is Trump is not ready for a boxing heavy weight contest where scientific skills matter. Yes a 15-rounds contest where low blows simply do not gain you an advantage but count against getting into the White House.

 

Tonight Hillary Rodham-Clinton decided with 5 months to go its time to lead. It is time to place America in global sense at the epicentre of the debate. Yes off course its early days in the contest, yet I hold this one speech has set the tone and I would not be surprised if she as early as June 2, clinched the 45th USA Presidential Campaign and Bill is getting ready to pack his bags to move back to the Whitehouse in making history this time as the First Man.

 

My unsolicited advice to the Republicans, if you have any hope of saving your party vote with you minds and not your hearts.

 

Let us wait and see….

 

Clyde N.S. Ramalaine

Independent Observer

Advertisements

Who really decided Zille must step aside for a Maimane leadership?

 

-Maimane’s candidacy – project Obama, is not his, neither is it Zille’s but perhaps an International one –

James Baldwin, accredited for having singed the frontal lobes of many white intellectuals in 1963 writes the following: “White Americans find it difficult, as white people elsewhere do, to divest themselves of the notion that they are in possession of some intrinsic value that black people need or want. And his assumption – which, for example, makes the solution of the Negro problem depend on the speed with which the Negroes accept and adopt white standards – is revealed in all kinds of striking way, from Bobby Kennedy’s assurance that a Negro can become President in forty years, to the unfortunate tone of warm congratulation with which so many liberals address their Negro equals-an achievement that not only proves the comforting fact that perseverance has no colour, but also overwhelmingly corroborates the white man’s sense of his own value” (James Baldwin 1963 THE FIRE NEXT TIME)

 

From this citation, it is clear that Barack Hussein Obama’s presidency was not merely a prophecy but an orchestrated activity in which the Kennedy Clan played its critical role exactly 40 years later.

 

We dare not forget the critical role the last senior of the Kennedy clan (Ted Kennedy) played in securing the 44th president as the first ‘black’ USA president in history.   I am of the view that orchestration is not unique to an Obama but may prove very plausible, in this musing in the succession debate of the Democratic Alliance.

 

A week or so ago, the leader of the opposition and the DA Helen Zille, announced her non-availability for contest of DA leadership in the immediate future. The aftermath of this press briefing afforded us many interpretations of this sudden unfolding paradigm. There are those who bestowed honour and salutations of congratulations on her for ‘her’ decision as that, which attest, and confirms progressive leadership.

 

Yet, others of whom I am one, remonstrated her decision did not come without a nudge if not an instruction.

 

Perhaps it is important to, first provide a context, Helen Zille makes her statement literally within days after she had returned from the USA having concluded a fundraising exercise. It is said she assembled a select and distinct group of people for her brainstorming at Leeuwenhof; two of those included in this meeting are some of her or the DA’s biggest funders. Maimane despite being the leader of the opposition in parliament did not attend this meeting, but the CEO of the DA did. Wilmot James the Chairperson of the DA did not attend this meeting also, clearly an interesting twist. Maimane we can assume did not attend because Zille did not want be seen to overtly anoint her successor, or to compromise Maimane’s candidacy hence he it is claimed did not know (politics). James was not invited because he stands on the other side of Zille’s prism and therefore not one to be trusted. This meeting results in the hastily convened press statement, which came with a cocktail of tears and emotions.

 

Shortly after this the public is introduced to the candidacy of a Mmusi Maimane who last weekend did not know if was going to stand or not, seemingly all of sudden confirms his readiness to stand. It is a given that Maimane has Zille’s blessing to lead the Democratic Alliance, we hear of rumours of a potential candidacy of Dr. Wilmot James but I dare assert of this nothing will come.

 

Mmusi Maimane whom many have already called ‘Mr. Obama’ in imitation will become the first black leader of the DA come the hour. The fervour with which he bestowed honour to a Zille bordered on the praise singing of an imbongi, yet that is all scripted because the SA-Obama project is unfolding.

 

Whilst this is a given, I will postulate that the decision for Helen Zille to step down does not simply attests local or domestic politics at play, but a serious global hand evidenced in the USA. Was Helen Zille told by the funders, its time you shift, and that time is now, and you will find a ‘black’ young leader because it is in the interest of some that the ANC is truly challenged with the view of unseating it in elections. There is no question that the funders for whatever reason are not in concert with an ANC leadership but tolerates it until it can produce what it believes is the correct formula to secure a victory in national polls. Whether this will work is yet to be discovered.

 

My premise for this is borne out in the building of a profile of a Mmusi Maimane, whose candidacy for a Gauteng Elections had a R120milion tag to it. Another reason why Mmusi and not a Lindiwe Mazibuko is to be that face is the reality of our politics of male dominance as often understood from a cultural context as acceptable with even the ANC Women’s league proving soft in aggression for a woman candidacy. The Gauteng elections contest was to be the springboard for catapulting Mmusi Maimane into relevance and place of prominence in the DA, which it is hoped is only a mid-stop to a possible presidency of SA. We must also calmly asked if the woman led move of a DA immanent in Helen Zille, Patricia De Lille and Lindiwe Mazibuko really had meaning for women advancement in the political economy. Close examination appears to suggest not.

 

We can also accept that Zille’s attempt at securing a parachuted ‘black’ face for the 2014 National Elections in a Mamphela Ramphele was not as innocent and stupid as is advanced but again a means by which the DA sought to adapt to the new reality of which I claim they are directed to go perhaps less by locals ( the true constituency of the DA) but by funders local and abroad.

 

There is another dimension I wish to add here, just as much as a Bobby Kennedy back in 1963 could predict or, as I would like to believe, orchestrate a future Obama presidency so we can confirm that Hillary Clinton will become the 45th President of the USA come 2016. It does not take rocket science to appreciate the hegemony of male dominance of politics as evidenced in the local USA and world contexts. Thus, it would have been more palatable for a black male (provided he is of certain standing) to surge in ascendance of political power ahead of a white female presidency.

 

Back to Maimane’s candidacy, Is it possible that in South Africa with its more progressive constitution and its need to show the world that it produced its first ‘white’ female opposition leader (Zille), the SA opposition proved more racial than the USA who in my assessment proved more chauvinistic in an Obama Election victory.

 

By the same token we may also ask if reverse of that male hegemony in party politics in the Democratic Party of a Tony Leon leadership, whilst confronted with the reality of a need to change to a black leadership, instead argued back then already we will rather have a female ‘white’ leader before we have a ‘black’ leader.

 

It is water under the bridge now that history finally caught up with the conservative Democratic Party (the enclave and hide out of all former National Party and Conservative Party members) who despite becoming a Democratic Alliance never shed its true identity of conservatism. The DA remains a party with an androgynous ideological definition, for it is made up of Afrikaner and English conservatives in claim of liberalism. In this season, it has secured a growing black voter base who does not necessarily understand this ideological challenge, but who is tired or angry with an ANC that it claims has failed.

 

Therefore, whilst the nominations and candidacy of the DA’s future leadership dynamics are unfolding and the proverbial taste of a black leader in a conservative setting though claimed as liberal, is proving not palatable for the majority of real DA supporters, the efficacy of holding on to the white dominance confirms an eternal description of a white party as opposition and not in line with the demanded dictate of those who truly control the future of the DA. That control plausibly may have a foreign funder hand.

 

In an earlier piece I wrote title ‘Steve Hofmeyr the evidence of the crisis of the Afrikaner Political Leadership’, I advanced the notion that the Afrikaner intelligentsia has never been able to accept its new position of opposition; it thus has a stubborn reluctance to participate in the design of the new democratic era. I argued the Afrikaner intelligentsia pins its hopes on a South Africa in failure, from this prims of a will and must fail, it readies itself to govern again once the failure is accepted as evident. This latter thought is what makes them not to participate meaningfully to contribute from its resources and skills, because its divestment in the democratic SA it its investment in a future rulership.

 

I now seek to extend the boundaries of this Afrikaner claim in saying the DA (who represents the earlier mentioned conservative Afrikaner and English voter-constituency) has made a calculated choice that it will never persuade SA voters to accept its vision unless it has a black face hence the choice of a Maimane. He now becomes the means to legitimise itself as a black party, sensitive to the critical dimension of youth role with the hope of governance less from a liberal but a conservative notion, which is in-sink with the Afrikaner aim, as advised by the  funders.

 

Maimane fits this paradigm as an educated, young leader, not ANC aligned, and who imbibes DA policy in all its facets. He is articulate as one who epitomises the new ‘race-free’ South Africa whose personal family attests this reality. He bridges the gap and is that male figure that feeds the paradigm of a not yet ready SA to be governed by a woman.

 

Maimane therefore is the project – Obama in the DA context, he will lead it, because upon him the hopes of a ANC unseating is placed, as carefully selected by those across the big waters less by those in domestic DA context who may prove dinosauric for finding a black leader acceptable even in 21 years after the advent of democracy. They will die a natural political death because their irrelevance in frozen paradigm is not congruent with this moment as determined by the funders of the DA and those who have an interest to see the ANC unseated.

 

I am afraid it is not as simple as it appears, I am afraid his candidacy was not his neither was it Zille’s but the funders who have deep pockets who read the times and like Kennedy in 1963 can correctly predict or orchestrate an outcome such as an Obama presidency so in this season Maimane is making history to become the first black leader of a white party with the hope of influencing the future elections.

 

I will also attempt to argue in a later piece that this is significant because it must mean in be seen as positive the interest of the national agenda. A shift to a middle ground from the SA Opposition party is necessary, hence a ‘black’ leader be it Mmusi Maimane or Wilmot James may be that bridge for that ideological shift. The ANC itself has to shift, though its closer to the middle ground than the Opposition Party. It is my view that Wilmot James will push more for this ideological shift than a Maimane. Thus if the DA elects a Maimane the shift will be slower because he does not naturally represent in ideology.

 

In conclusion, it remains my submission Helen Zille never stepped aside as a gesture of her own goodwill, but she was instructed to do what she did, by those before whom she bows.

 

The choice of Maimane is not that of the DA voters constituency, they too had not any say in it, equally it’s not Maimane’s choice he finds himself almost prophesied no rather orchestrated as the right man in the right place at the right time with the right profile.

 

Clyde N. S. Ramalaine

Political Commentator