The Only Unity Was the Town’s Name
Jun 28, 2008 Political
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama had a unification meeting in a place called Unity, New Hampshire where they pretended to bury the hatchet in order to bring the party together in a big effort to beat John McCain in November. The two have not been together since about a month ago when Clinton suspended her campaign and vowed to help Obama win. I did not believe her then and I do not believe her now.
The Clintons are sore losers and the idea that an inexperienced, first term Senator with nothing more than the gift of gab could beat them is grating on their nerves. Bill Clinton has taken to other tasks rather than be involved in anything where he has to discuss the recent primary because he usually says things that sound more like sour grapes than thoughtful analysis. He went to a party for Nelson Mandella where he barely acknowledged the existence of Oprah Winfrey, a person with whom he once had a good friendship. She backed Obama and he did not like that. Bill might say he will support Obama but he will not work too hard to do it.
A large number of Clinton supporters are saying they will not back Obama and though I am sure that number will decrease by the time election day rolls around, there will still be a number of them who will stay home or will vote for McCain. Obama needs the Hillary supporters if he is to stand a chance of winning so he gains from the uncomfortable relationship with the Clintons.
Hillary Clinton has about 20 million dollars in campaign debt that she needs retired (and God knows she does not want to spend her own money to do it) so she needs the Obama campaign and its money to help settle the bills. She will play along with this uncomfortable pairing in order to get her bills paid. She will even give the appearance of being a good little storm trooper and going along with the Obama nomination but she (or more likely her surrogates) will be working in the background to help get Obama defeated. Hillary would love to see Obama lose (and the worse he loses the better) so she could say “I told you so” to the DNC and run in 2012.
But Hillary needs to be careful. She needs to give the appearance that she is supporting Obama and that she wants to defeat McCain. Any member of the Democratic plantation who utters anything that goes against the grain will be met harshly. Ask Debra Bartoshevich, a national delegate who supported Clinton but has not consumed the Obama Kool Aid. She stated that she would vote for McCain in November and now she is no longer a delegate. Hillary cannot cross the gods at the DNC (more than she has by dragging out the primary) and she certainly cannot give he appearance of screwing over Obama until her debt is paid and the convention is over, but her people can work behind the scenes.
I have no doubt in my military mind that the Clintons want Obama to lose and to lose badly. I also have no doubt that Obama wants the Clintons to just keep quiet and not help “too much.” In any event the Unity meeting was nothing more than a facade to bring all the other little Dems into line and get them to vote for Obama. They might talk like friends but there are still a lot of bitter feelings (more so on the Clinton side) and there will always be discomfort when they are together.
Keep this in mind little Democrats, the Clintons do not want Obama to win but they do not want to appear as if they are destroying the party. They will work in the background to squash Obama and his presidential aspirations.
The only thing that had anything to do with Unity during the meeting is the name of the town where they met.
Tags: Clinton, new hampshire, Obama, unity
Gore Still Holds Grudge for 2000, Finally Endorses Obama
Jun 17, 2008 Political
The prophet of the United Church of Manmade Globull Warming, Al Gore, finally endorsed Barry Obama for president. This is not surprising given that Hillary Clinton is all but done and most others are falling behind the Obamessiah. The question is, why did he wait so long?
During his endorsement speech (why did he have to give a speech) Gore told the doting mob of Kool Aid drinkers that they should take it from him “elections matter.” This is his way of saying that if he had been elected in 2000 things would be different than they are today. I have no doubt about that but Gore means they would be better:
“After eight years of incompetence, neglect and failure, we need change,” Gore said. “After eight years when our Constitution has been dishonored and disrespected, we need changes.” My Way News
Gore still cannot get over the fact that he lost, yes lost, in 2000. Every recount shows he lost and yet he is unable to come to terms with that. I know he likes to talk badly about the president but Gore should think back to when he and Clinton were in office and the abuses that they were involved in before casting stones. The Constitution is abused by those who somehow find the word abortion or health care in the document. No where in the Constitution does it say Congress shall fund health care for all people (or even some of them). No where does it say that murdering unborn children is allowed. It does say the president is the commander in chief of the armed forces and that Congress will fund the army and navy.
It is easy for Al Gore to say that things would have been different if he had been elected. However, there is no way of knowing how he would have reacted to the events of 9/11. If he used what was done while he was VP he would have treated it like a criminal act, lobbed a few missiles and called it a day. Bin Laden and the terrorists kept attacking us because they wanted a response. 9/11 was so catastrophic that, with a Republican in the White House, they got one. Gore might have done little, thus further inviting increased attacks. He might have handled it heroically and in the best interests of the nation but, like him, I have no real way of knowing. I only have a past to look at for clues.
Obama got his big endorsement and he is all fired up, ready to bring about change and hope and hope and change. He is ready to tax the hell out of everyone and to abuse the Constitution that Al says has been dishonored and disrespected by imposing universal health care.
Al Gore endorsing Obama was no surprise. He has had it in for the Clintons since he lost in 2000 (yes he LOST). Al waited to be the last of the big names in order to stroke his overinflated ego.
I will be impressed the day Bill Clinton walks out on stage and endorses Obama.
Push for White Guilt Starts Early
Jun 8, 2008 Political
In the past week Barack Hussein Obama became the presumptive Democratic nominee to run against John McCain (the presumptive Republican nominee) for the presidency. While it was a long fight and a bit rocky it has finally ended with Hillary Rodham Clinton’s suspension of her candidacy and her support of Obama. Make no mistake, this is a historic moment in the American story and that should never be taken lightly. A man who identifies as black has secured a nomination and that has never before happened. While we could argue over his ability or merits for the job or even if it was foolish to select him those arguments would be based on any number of things none of which is his color.
Throughout this campaign season though, there have been rumblings about race. Certainly some statements were racist or referred to race but often the statements were made racist in an effort to gain sympathy for Obama and add to the ever increasing list of things we cannot discuss. Obama and his campaign have been very effective at framing those items that may be discussed and have forced opponents to tread lightly less they be labeled racist. The population of West Virginia was labeled as racist because it did not vote for Obama and instead went for Clinton by a large margin. No one even considered that maybe the people liked her message better. They were automatically racists because they did not vote for the anointed one. It is important to note that these were Democratic primaries so the people who were being labeled as racists were Democrats and it is important to note that the people labeling West Virginians as racist excused and ignored the real racists, Reverend Wright and Father Pfleger.
The idea that if someone does not vote for Obama is because of racism is gaining speed and many will quietly push that message. A piece by Errin Haines of the AP’s Atlanta bureau points this out very specifically. Haines, a black woman who covers race and civil rights, describes the elation among the members of the black community at Obama’s selection and the possibility of him being elected president. Their elation is somewhat subdued because blacks are worried about coded references to Obama that set him apart from the rest:
Still, pesky rumors that Obama is actually a Muslim persist. Every now and then, someone publicly calls him by his full name — Barack Hussein Obama — as if to put out a coded reminder of what sets this candidate apart from the rest.
Obama’s candidacy is about race and it isn’t. It has illuminated the fact that black and white America don’t really know each other all that well, and has forced both sides to rethink what they thought they knew about each other and themselves.
Even after Obama accepts the Democratic nomination on Aug. 28 — 45 years to the day after the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his “I Have a Dream” speech — black Americans can’t — or won’t — exhale until the votes are counted, and we have 21 more Tuesdays to go.
Our pained history has taught us that the best intentions don’t always translate into action. As we stand next to white Americans at the polls on Nov. 4, we will wonder:
“What did you do when you were alone in that booth? Did you go with that sticker, that T-shirt, that screensaver and vote for Obama, or was that just for show?” Yahoo News
The use of Obama’s full name, while a reminder to some, is nothing unusual. We call her Hillary RODHAM Clinton. For the longest time Obama’s campaign and the liberal blogs referred to him as BHO and unless I missed something, that H stands for Hussein. It is the man’s name and while it congers negativity in some Obama does not help the issue with his treatment of Israel and his insistence on meeting terrorist leaders in the Muslim world without precondition.
I am at a loss as to what Haines means by best intentions. Let me make this clear, the intention of all Americans should be to elect the person who they believe is the best for this country regardless of what sex or what color the candidates are. No election, but particularly this one, is some exercise in affirmative action that is designed to elevate a black man to the highest office in this nation just because of some good intent or because of white guilt and it is not to break a glass ceiling to make women feel good about themselves. If people vote for Obama because they believe he is the best for the job then that is their right but to suggest that there is some intention to right all the past wrongs by anointing Obama and anyone who fails to vote for him is racist is wrong and anyone who espouses that point of view should not be allowed out in public without supervision.
Haines indicates that when blacks are at the polls and see whites they will wonder what they did [while in the booth]. In other words, did you vote for Obama like you are supposed to or did you commit a racist act and vote for someone other than Obama? You do not have to wonder about this white guy Errin because I will NOT be voting for Obama. It has nothing to do with his color and everything to do with him being the most liberal Senator in the Senate. It has everything to do with his socialist policies and lack of leadership experience. It has to do with his pro abortion stance, his refusal to vote against late term and partial birth abortions and his vote to allow babies to die after they are born because their mothers do not want them. It has to do with his disregard for the Second Amendment and his desire to disarm all law abiding citizens. It has to do with his disregard for the men and women in the armed forces and his desire to hand them a defeat from DC that the enemy cannot exact on the battlefield. It has to do with any number of tried and failed liberal policies that have created a class of people, mostly black, dependent upon government for everything and unable to think or work for themselves, a mentality that led to chaos in New Orleans after Katrina hit. However, if you must believe that anyone who does not vote for Barry is racist because they refused to vote for a black man, let me ease your mind.
Barack Hussein Obama is half black and half white. Consider it this way, I will be voting against the part of him that is white and unfortunately I cannot do so without also voting against the black part. While my vote will have nothing to do with color, there are those, like you Ms. Haines, who will make it all about color so this should help ease your narrow minds.
Americans are no more racist for not voting for Obama than they are ageists if they do not vote for McCain or sexists if they did not vote for Hillary. It comes down to qualifications and how the voting public assesses them. If it involves something else then people are misguided.
Amazingly, the black vote went greater than 90% for Obama in the primary and it will do so in the general election (they are almost always greater than 90% for the Democrat). How is it OK that a portion of the black population voted for Obama simply because of his color but if white people vote overwhelmingly for a candidate who happens to be white, they are racists?
Errin Haines should rethink the reason we vote. If she is hung up on the good intentions rather than the good of the nation (according to the voter’s perception) then perhaps she needs to go back to school.
Tags: affirmative action, Clinton, errin haines, liberal prattle, McCain, Obama, racism
Like Most Victims of Abuse, Hillary will Submit
Jun 7, 2008 Opinion, Political
Women who suffer abuse at the hands of the men in their lives usually end up blaming the men’s behavior on a plethora of other things and ultimately themselves. They then turn back to the men and in an effort to reconcile only to be abused again and again. Hillary Clinton has been through this before with her husband. His sexcapades were abusive to their relationship (and threatened her political aspirations) and she stuck by his side. She blamed the problems they were having on everything from Republican dirty tricks to the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. Hillary Clinton stuck by Bill when many women were saying she should dump him. They failed to understand the psychological aspect of abuse.
And so we now have the end, or at least it looks like the end, of the Democratic primary season with Barack Hussein Obama snatching victory from Hillary. I am no Hillary supporter (I don’t support either of them) but I agree with her and many others that the campaign was sexist and that sexism was tolerated and even participated in by the media. Obama had a condescending attitude toward Hillary (your likable enough) and the media scrutinized aspects of Clinton that no male candidate endured. What Hillary wore, her cleavage, her make up and how she acted were common themes. The only mention of Obama’s clothing was the clamor of fawning reporters who were sexually aroused by Mr. Obama’s tight jeans. Those clothes were used to portray him as some kind of sex symbol with whom the lady reporters were enthralled.
After all the sexism that took place in this campaign Hillary Clinton was reduced to a victim who turned back to her abuser. Today she suspended her campaign and threw her support behind Obama and she called for all her supporters, many of whom are women, to get behind Obama as well. She asked them to turn a blind eye to the sexism many of them remain furious about. Hillary, instead of shunning her abuser, went to him.m And though I am sure she made few excuses for what happened she still ignored the open attacks on her sex and backed the man responsible. Her actions are no different than what she did with her husband after his abuse. The idea that she would be selected as VP is nothing more than continued sexism. She is not good enough to be on top of the ticket even after winning the most votes but she can play second fiddle to a man. It is like they are telling her that if she does not make a stink about the way she was treated and helps her abuser they will give her a reward (honey, here is a necklace. I am sorry I beat you up last night, you know I really love you).
Hillary could break the cycle of abuse and strike out on her own. She could either decide that she is not going to support Obama and go back to her duties or she could fight back by running as an Independent. Hillary Clinton received more of the popular vote than Obama did and she could hold her own in a general election. She could break the cycle of sexism and be beholden to no one in the Democratic party. She could demonstrate to the Democrats that she and her supporters did not appreciate the sexist attitudes and the way that she was treated and she could tell them she refuses to continue being a victim of the cycle of abuse that is common in those types of relationships.
It will take strength to do this but no one accuses Clinton of lacking strength. She could break from the party and turn Independent and announce her intention of running for the presidency. She could do this just after the convention where they anoint Obama and take advantage of the emotional state of the women who supported her. She would have to change party affiliation which would be another dig at the Democrats who would lose strength in the Senate but it would be necessary for her to run.
Hillary has thrown her support to her abuser but it is not too late for her to break the cycle. She can make her plans and then announce after the convention. She has people who would continue to work for her and she could get public funding for the election. It takes one step at a time in order for the abused to break the cycle and get away from the abuser.
Hillary can take that step by running as an Independent.
Sources:
Herald Tribune
al-Reuters
Washington Post
Tags: abuse, Clinton, concession, independent, Obama, sexism
OK to Kill Bush, Not Obama or Clinton Though
Jun 4, 2008 Political
Some time ago a movie came out that depicted President Bush being assassinated. There was some disgust expressed but the movie was allowed to play as liberals had orgasms at the very thought of it coming to fruition. That was all well and good and the poloice and Secret Service did not get involved. If they had, liberals would have been crying about freedom of speech.
Now, a man has been detained in New York because he put up an art exhibit depicting the assassination of Hillary Clinton and the assassination of Barack Obama. The art exhibit dealt with the artist’s perceived character assassination of these candidates by the media.
The police called the Secret Service and the man, Yazmany Arboleda, was whisked away for interrogation. The police and the SS were worried that his art might incite a nut to do something criminal. This man’s rights were violated.
It is perectly OK to depict Jesus in urine or animal dung on the Virgin Mary and it is even OK to make a fil showing President Bush being assassinated but God forbid someone mention the word assassinate (look how they reacted to Hillary’s comment) when referring to the two Democrats. This man was not allowed to display his art and for what reason?
I think these kinds of displays are quite stupid but I also believe that this artist had every right to put it up and the SS and police should have left him alone.
They certainly left the movie producers alone.
Source:
New York Times
Tags: art, assasinate, Clinton, pbama, police, secret service