Did Barack Hussein Obama have his own boohoo moment?
A commenter, Hector, wrote the following about the "Democratic Poster" we published yesterday:
Hector said...
It appears that you missed the latest on your candidate, "the world class genius" "Hillary loses voice, bawls again, kills Vince Foster and will garnish your wages". Now that's someone to get behind.
Monday, February 04,
2008
They're coming out of the woodwork again. The Clinton haters----the most vehement of who seem to be Obama supporters--are joining ranks with the fellas, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, and the other radical conservatives looking for any flimsy reason to dismiss the New York Senator's presidential bid. Even Ann Coulter has backed off, and said she would vote for Clinton. The Obamanites don't much cotton to emotion, although they have hoisted their man onto a pedestal and generally characterize the Illinois Senator as Gandhi, Socrates, and Jesus rolled up into one smiling, marketable package.
If Hillary cried, so what? In context, and it's easy to see why it WAS an emotiomnal moment. People had a ball when George Bush shed a few tears. But it is apparently not seemly for a woman to exhibit the same emotion. The Obamanites scoff at tenderness and compassion in a woman as scripted and cynical but swoon over and venerate their Chosen One for showing the same emotions without the waterworks.
In fact, it appears to us that Saint Obama himself may have shed a discrete tears on the hustings. But even if he had, the Obama idolators would tell you it's OK, it comes from his heart.
In fact, it appears to us that Saint Obama himself may have shed a discrete tears on the hustings. But even if he had, the Obama idolators would tell you it's OK, it comes from his heart.
---o0o---
Yeah, this Hector cat is a little over the top. You ever thought of restricting access to your comments. If your site is charting college grad level biw eliminating droolers like him might give you a bump to dual degrees or so.
ReplyDeleteJackie, I love that you are defending Hillary and her jackals. She better hope she scampers to shore tonight because if not all the pus muscle Mark, Howard & Terry can flex from here on out won't be enough to save her. I love that they want debates every week from here on out. They really must be running out of dough. Did you see that McAuliffe's accounting skills responding to Obama's $32mil haul in January? That was priceless.
ReplyDeleteDoesn't it trouble you a little that she and her team are barely keeping up with a savvy but first term senator. I've said it for awhile, David Axlerod is light years ahead of Fraid to Fly, Sweathog and the Irish Dirt Bag.
RUN, Forest, RUN.
ReplyDeleteSo, Jackie, Senator Inevitability, the world class genius, who controls Bill and is in charge of her own campaign (does that mean she ordered Bill to lie about his original position on the Iraq invasion and to purposefully distort and demean Obama's record on that invasion and to craft a racially coded derision of Obama's stunning SC success?), but I digress, has battled the Illini freshman senator to a draw. Now she wants debates each and every week and Howard doesn't know if they're digging into their own stash. Why, is the vault on board Hil Force One or the Hilocopter? If you watched their speeches last night, you could not have missed how Obama subtly but forcefully advanced the new terms of their debate even as she blares on with her laundry list. He has been calling the tune for a while now and she is lumbering to keep to the beat. She is looking more and more vulnerable even as he has shrewdly drawn her similarities to McCain. She can run but she can't hide and guess what Obama doesn't need to debate her. Watch her mounting desperation as this plays out. Do you still think she is the best general election candidate?
ReplyDeleteCaucus for Obama in WA, Jackie, it'll feel good to back a winner. No Hillary, No Humphrey, back the real change agent.
All I hear from Obama is "Change" "The time has come for change" and "It's our time for change."
ReplyDeleteI'll admit he's a great speaker. I like the guy...and have since his first great convention speech last time around. I like his ideas (although mainly they're not much different than Hillary's). I don't really think he's an empty suit at all...but I do wonder what will happen on January 21, when he finally has to deliver on all this change. Yeah, floating the trial balloon about an Edwards as AG scenario was good. Troop withdrawals good.
When you say that BHO "forcefully the new terms of debate" did you mean he did that by saying again:
"We can do this! We can do this,"
"We are the hope for the future,"
"We are the answer to the cynics who tell us our house must stand divided."
Everyone from Hitler to Ross Perot has campaigned on change, change, change. Even Reagan and Bush.
No, when he said that "hillary and I were friends before and we will be friends after but the American people deserve a choice in this election". I do think that she has been reacting to him for awhile now as such she has been declawed.
ReplyDeleteAnd, Jackie, it's not a little specious to equate him to Hitler, dare I say, it's downright Clintonian. That said, why didn't you include Bill in your list of miscreants?
What I find funny is that his critics demean him for simply crowing "change" when his web page is replete with policy briefs that are quite extensive and detailed. At the same time they accept Hillary's claim for "experience" at face value. What experience does she have exactly? When demonstrating it in debates her self proclaimed list is largely vaque blather that culminates with her claims for creating the Children's HIP that, as far as I can tell, she barely had any input with.
Since we elect our presidents based on their campaigns his is proving to be quite canny and taking on the Clinton machine itself so successfully is no mean feat. I believe that he will agree to a debate or two after letting her go into conniptions and when he does he will dismantle her campaign.