It appears Obama is running–at least, until his lifeless body is found mysteriously in the parking lot behind the DNC headquarters.
We can only wonder what goes on in Hillary’s sharp, bitter, Machiavellian mind as she sits in front of the fire at night, swirling her cognac and wondering what nubile co-ed Bill’s banging now. Life just isn’t fair. Her greatest moments are yet to come: Hillary Clinton, First Woman President of the United States. But now, all she’s worked for all her life, ever since she was Class President at Maine South High School, is under seige from an articulate, ruthless shit-heel who has more ambition than her husband but who hasn’t even paid his fucking dues. Ruthless? You wanna know ruthless?
Time to get medieval…
But the fluff pieces I keep reading about him have me convinced he’d be, like, a totally awesome president.
Plus, I hear he’s a Black fella. So those who don’t vote for him are racists.
CHECKMATE, BITCHES!
I was gonna call him the Great Black Hype, but I thought it might be construed as racist. In any event, he’s got a great facade. I wonder what it’ll take to make it drop.
It is certainly going to be a tricky couple of years for the politically other.
I fear that ahem may be correct in his prognosis that Obama’s life wouldn’t be worth the famous plugged nickel if he were fool enough to stray into Arkansas after dark.
But maybe he has Mau Mau blood running through his veins. In which case, it is Hillary who should feel the hairs on the back of her legs rising as the night falls over upstate New York…
Since Dims have a recent history of running fast-talking empty suits for president, I predict an Obama/Hillary team.
He has even fewer accomplishments than she does, after all, she became a corporate lawyer, worked for huge banks and married a professional politician and pants-dropper, then had to move to another state to get elected, herself.
If I were her, I’d be pissed, too.
The whole ‘articulate’ being racist thing- you know, ‘So and so is so well spoken’. Which is replied with: ‘That’s racist!’?
Knowing half the people I do (or half of that even) how articulate Steele, Obama or any of the black people we’re supposedly racist for noting their good articulation—is incredible! Most of the folks I know would get up there and stutter and slur themselves into a puddle.
By slur, by the way, I do not mean spouting racial epithets – that’s reserved for Leftists.
Heck, I’m well spoken but not as well spoken as some of those guys. Its always been stupid to not be able to note that when it is true. Obviously there were times when it meant ‘A black feller wid’ an edumacation?’
This is not one of those times.
Oratory is an art!
C.J. Roberts is pretty good at it too.
Bush? Not so much. See the point? These guys really ARE well spoken.
And they’re the only ones who are allowed to value it.
Break free from the oppression of bad speaking, mah bruthahs!
For once, I think I agree with Hillary. Obama not only hasn’t paid dues, he hasn’t even gotten a position paper written for him about the existence of dues. He’s interesting mostly because he is in the midst of inventing himself for the political stage. I have my doubts about just how black he considered himself until he got involved in Chicago Democrat politics. If I’m recalling correctly, he never met his father, nor went to Africa, or any of those other victimized, yet deserving minority tricks that are so endearing to libs until he decided to run for office. His mother is white, of course, and he was raised in a Muslim country (you can look it up, I’m to lazy to post a link), then went to the best schools afore he discovered the potential marketability of his daddy’s heritage. I have a theory that Obama is secretly Muslim and his unseemly haste in running for high office is part of a plan to plant a mole in high places. Hopefully not, but if so, you heard it here first. Anyways, Hillary will no doubt “take care” of him first.
Words to consider from Rich Lowry at the National Review.
Yup, sounds like a certain guy from Ark. that we have known…
BUBBA ALERT!!!
Medieval? Pal, I have this idea that Hillary would make medieval pall in comparison. I’m talking total Old Testament wrath-of-God stuff. You think Lot suffered? You think Jeremiah had something to cry about? You think she’d settle for Howard Dean’s lower mandible like Samson did?
Ho-ho, methinks young Sen.Obama better sleep very, very lightly. Such as not at all. For the next dozen years or twenty.
You talkin’ ‘bout Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.?
That Obama?
Mr. Obama’s chances all come down to the national mood in 2008, which is impossible to predict now.
Mr. Obama shares one other important trait with Mr. Clinton: while he wants to be President, he has no idea what he wants to do once he is President. He’ll have the same laundry list of policies that Mr. Clinton had, but his main objective as President will be to keep his approval ratings up, so he’ll pursue whatever policies will make him popular. If Bush is a modern-day Truman, than Mr. Obama may well be a modern-day Eisenhauer.
If the national mood is the same happy-go-lucky, what-me-worry, end-of-history mood that prevailed for most of the 90s, then Mr. Obama wins both the Democratic primary and the general election hands down, for the simple reason that unlike any other potential candidate – and especially Hillary – Mr. Obama is likable. He radiates a warmth and genuineness that makes other candidates pale in comparison. If America is looking for a feel-good, do-nothing President, then Mr. Obama will fit that bill. The only stumbling block to Mr. Obama’s victory under these circumstances will be fundraising. Mr. Obama will need to raise enough cash to get his face in front of those voters who have no idea who he is. If he can’t raise enough cash in the Democratic primary, then he’ll lose to Hillary.
If America is in a serious mood, comparable to the year or so after 9/11 or the warmer parts of the Cold War, then Mr. Obama’s lack of experience becomes a serious liability. Democratic voters may not particularly like Hillary, but they respect her, and even though she herself is lacking in experience as an executive, she will still stand above Mr. Obama. Under these circumstances, the conventional wisdom will be that Mr. Obama isn’t yet ready for the Presidency, but that he will be a “formidible challenger” in years to come.
What about a dual Hillary/Obama or Obama/Hillary ticket? The latter is not viable because Hillary will never accept second billing. Pretty much her entire shot at the Presidency is in 2008, with a much weaker opportunity in 2012. If she has to wait until 2016 to run for President, she will be 69, and her age will become a liability.
In a Hillary/Obama ticket, Obama contributes little as a Vice-President. His charisma won’t help the pair, because voters are always voting for or against the person at the top of the ticket, not the person at the bottom. The Vice-Presidental candidate’s primary job during the general election is to deliver his or her home state and to create the perception of compensating for some a relatively unknown Presidential candidates weaknesses. However, Illinois is already a strong blue state and Hillary’s negatives are so strong that Obama will do little to budge them. So a Hillary/Obama ticket isn’t much different than a Hillary/anyone else ticket and will prevail under the same circumstances.
Tom Ault: Great analysis.
One other thought: Obama may very well feel that 2008 is the right time for him. There is a good reason why a sitting Senator hasn’t won a Presidential election in over 35 years.
Voting Record
Obama’s voting credentials are almost purely liberal, no matter how much he eschews conversation with or about the far left. So far he has managed to bankroll his charisma and moderate language into a current perception of a middle of the road guy. It is the Bill Clinton model and I think that he knows it. The longer he spends in the Senate, the longer his voting record grows and the tougher it gets to talk moderate but believe a liberal/progressive philosophy.
He’s also counting on being able to campaign in a primary and a national election without having to reveal, in any detail, what he would do as President.
Should I credit you for this twittering little subtlety or did it just come out? Either way, it gave me a smile!
Nice summary, Tom.
You really think anyone in this country will vote for someone whose middle name is Hussein?
While I think that that will be the least of his problems in a national campaign I also think that he would benefit from the PC coda not allowing anyone to try and sing that song.
Sorry to answer for you, Tom, but, hey, I was here and ready!
Me, too.
I just get amused by all the typical liberal harridans like Mo Dowd hyperventilating over the mere mention of the dude’s birth-given middle name by anyone much less a conservative/Republican.
Ain’t that the truthiness, kelly.
I’ve evolved over the years when it comes to voting decisions. A reasonable review of the candidates starts by examining their voting records. That little chestnut is the true measure of what a candidate will attempt to accomplish in office. I think that Obama is very bright, charismatic and very, very articulate in the Clinton/Reagon mold. That having been said, it means almost nothing to me. His 100% rating by ADA, however, speaks volumes.
I’m more than willing to take the same tact with John McCain, a similar politician. Unfortunatly for John, his vote and sponsorship of that big, stinking pile of ostrich crap called “McCain/Feingold” will weigh heavily against him.
Charisma and articulation mean virtually nothing. Principles and actual deeds (votes, bills) speak to me. So far, Obama is lacking.
You know what would be hilarious is if Obama were married to an asexual, power-hungry shrew with a messianic complex and penchant for political hardball.
And a Yale law degree.
And a strange, psychological, toxic co-dependency with a serial pants-dropping adulterer.
” ….blog-besotted fever swamp , that is much of the left right now . “ Heh.
It says it all.
As I said in the other thread, I voted for Clinton. I did. Once. And I don’t regret it too terribly.
But, folks, I must confess: I also voted for Jimmah. I still wake up in a cold sweat remembering it, once in a while. Compared to that, nothing anybody could do for Bill is less than saintly.
And in both cases the same thinking contributed. I thought we had too many professional politicians, that electing outsiders, or the next best thing to outsiders, would help clean up the system.
No more. Barak Obama wouldn’t get my vote if his middle name were Washington. Not Hilary, either. They’re outsiders.
I want professionals. I want people whose first hand-eye coordination exercise was stuffing ballot boxes, people whose great-grandfathers got splinters rolling out pork barrels, people who ran for Class President in sixth grade, won, and never looked back. It’s not that having a real job some time in the past is disqualifying. It’s that applying for a real job anytime in the past is an ineradicable black mark. If the job in question was as a lawyer, out comes the Mauser.
It’s the good-hearted ignoramuses who do the lasting damage. Amateurs. Turn the whole fæcking mess over to the Chicago Board of Aldermen and have done with it, dammit.
Regards,
Ric
Yeesh! I’m going to disagree with you, Ric, but I’m all sweaty at the prospect. It feels like arguing with Plato. Then again, I voted for Carter too in ‘76 *shudder*
I’ve come to believe that the whole insider/outsider spin is a bunch of nonsense. Whether or not one has tremendous beltway skills does not make one a good chief executive. Nor does running a state necessarily prepare one to be President. That position is unique in its demands, requiring a mix of character, guts, experience, intellegence, charisma and a strong moral base. It’s more than just “keep the trains running on time.” It’s having a vision of what’s good and what needs to be addressed.
For neo-stinky let’s take a look at Bush. He represents a fair review of the best and the worst. He is a man of strong principles, who is willing to deal with the heat for sticking to those principles. His moral center is strong, as well, perhaps reflecting the fact that his administration internally has been virtually without scandal. (Please don’t bring up Plamegate, neo-stink, as that will only open you up to merciless mocking.) He’s a down to earth, genuine, likable guy seperate from his job. On the other hand, he lacks the sort of charisma that can rally a country over the long haul of a war. While it is laudable that he recognized the threat of jihadists and the coluntries that shelter them and acted swiftly and decisively to deal with those threats, he still fell short in being able to articulate the sustained reasons for the GWOT, ultimately falling behind in the PR battle. He could be a fiscal conservative with tax cuts but not with Education or Transportation, where in part he traded principle in an attempt to curry bipartisan favor.
That’s enough for now. The point of all this, Ric, is that professional or amateur, insider or outsider, my concern is principle, policy and how consistantly you’ve applied the above to actual votes or sponsorships. I made a determination to ignore, for the most part, what candidates say (and, by extention, what the MSM writes about what they say) and take the time to do the dull work of seeking out their actual votes and sponsorships. It’s not a complete picture, but surely a better one than the landscape of lofty speeches or impressive resumes. That reflects my concern with Sen. Obama; great speaking, liberal voting.
Now I shall cower in my foxhole and await the artillary barrage from Ric which shall turn me into a smoking hulk.
INCOMING!!