Saturday, February 02, 2008

Clinton Or Obama?

Is American ready for a woman for president? Is America ready for a black man for president? Hillary's a woman, Barak's a black man, but they are identical twins for all the difference in their politics. It's as if they're both going to smash our skulls with a baseball bat, but one uses aluminum, and the other a Louisville Slugger. Either way, it's Headache City.

So the question isn't whether or not America is ready for a woman or a black man in the White House. In fact, that's an altogether stupid question, as stupid as the statement that now is the time for either. It's pretty clear that America isn't ready for this woman or this black man. It's really pretty sad that such a question even gets the time of day in America. Of course it's the character of the person along with their record and plans for the job that matters.

What matters even more, of course, is us. Are we paying attention? Are we staying abreast of the political scene at least in some substantive manner? More clearly, and more sadly, it is not the case with far too many voters based on the money being raised for these two clowns. I think it was Thursday's Hannity & Colmes where I caught a guy interviewing primary voters who backed these two. Most of them backed Obama (I can't decide if that's good or bad), with one guy saying it's because Obama has the guts to say what needs to be said. In this case it was that Obama wants to raise taxes. The interviewer asked for a show hands (there was about twenty or so lunatics) of those for whom raising taxes was important. Most of them raised their hands. It's amazing that they think that's a good thing.

Other comments, before I changed the channel, included the usual meaningless crap about change and unity. Unity. As Dennis Prager stated in a recent Townhall column, "unity" means buying into his crap, otherwise you're "devisive".

These two clowns musn't win the election. I don't think our country or our culture can sustain four or more years of people like these.


Neil said...

Great quote on Prager's part. I was thinking the same thing this morning. Obama and Hillary desparately want "change." That would be cool, except they don't mean "change our laws to protect the unborn." They mean "change the SC to ensure we never overturn RvW."

Les said...

Just out of curiousity:

"...'unity' means buying into his crap..."

Can I use the same line the next time someone accuses me of ruining national unity by disagreeing with the Iraq War?

Les said...

I'm also curious - is there a second "u" in "curiosity"? No? Dammit.

Marshall Art said...

"Can I use the same line the next time someone accuses me of ruining national unity by disagreeing with the Iraq War?"

Sure, if you think it applies. Frankly, I would say the same no matter who said it, particularly if it was a candidate who did.

As to the Iraq situation, many have disagreed with going in. We'll need a few more years to gauge the merits of this action more accurately. But I hope you don't feel the same about the unity we need to stand against the real threat of radical Islam.

Timothy said...

Yes, black and a woman should have nothing to do with this election. They should be elected based on their policy alone. Unfortunately, too many tend to think the presidency as some sort of popularity contest with the outcome being we get to say our guy won, without any consequences to our lives.

ELAshley said...

Wake up people! "We the People" have already lost the country. This election, whoever wins, means nothing. The Media chooses who we do and do not get as candidates.

Politicians do not care one iota about this nation. Only about advancing their own personal agendas, and securing for themselves personal wealth and power at the expense of "We the People"

Sorry to sound so cynical, but if anyone thinks we really have any power or say in this is fooling themselves. General election? Sure, we get to vote, but we only get to vote on the candidates the Media decides are acceptable.

As to Neil's...

"They mean "change the SC to ensure we never overturn RvW""

That statement should read:

"They mean "perpetuate the "CHANGE" the SC made to the Constitution, further perpetuating their fraud against the hearts, minds, and consciences of the citizens of individual states WHO, per the Constitution, had the sole right of "Choice" in the question of Abortion..."

Marshall Art said...

Wow, Eric. The feeling might be justified to some extent, but don't you think it's also a matter of "get what you pay for"? Despite how many politicians leave the arena with major spiffs, it doesn't mean they all have self-enriching personal agendas. There are far too many of 'em for them all to be crooks.

No. I think the problem is in us, or perhaps we the people.(I'm really diggin the tags! Thanks again.) We have three choices: we can (a)go with the media and vote for their fave, we can (b)really pay attention, especially on the local level whence came they, (c)find someone we trust who'll do the investigating for us. (Preferred order--b, c then a.) And we need to encourage others to do as well since it is the duty of everyone to be informed about those who might get to send nukes.

Unfortunately, too many people are diggin choice "a" because they're either too lazy or don't think such things are as important as other aspects of their lives.

Mark said...

It's as I've always said. The majority of Americans, whether they identify with the Republicans or the Democrats, don't know any more than what the major news outlets tell them, and they swallow every syllable hook, line, and sinker.

As much as we want to believe the average American is reasonably intelligent, the proof is in the pudding, so to speak. People who believe news about Britney Spears is more relevant then the War on terror, illegal immigration, etc, can't be too bright.

If Romney, or Guiliani, or Thompson, or Hunter had pandered to the press as McCain did, one of them would be the front runner now.

Neil said...

Hi - I selected you for a Thinking blogger award - congratulations and keep up the good work!

BB-Idaho said...

Wonder if Mark includes the 35 million loyal Limbaugh listeners when he decries the relation between media and opinion?

blamin said...


What’s your point? I think you forget something that’s very relevant when it comes to Limbaugh.

It’s not so much that Limbaugh listeners “parrot” his thoughts, but that he parrots the thoughts of his listeners.

The horse before the cart, or the cart before the horse? Big difference!

Mark said...

NO BB I'm referring to the sheeple who don't listen to talk radio. The ones that watch CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, or any other of those Liberally biased media outlets.

The ones that hear only what the media want them to hear rather than true fair and balanced news. Like Fox news. Yes, I know you probably think FOX is Conservatively biased, but once again, the proof is in the pudding. FOX actually has more Liberals on its staff than Conservatives. Plus, FOX is the only news channel that offers equal time to both sides of every issue.

Other than news, Those average Americans who allow themselves to be misguided don't listen to talk radio but instead, when they listen to the radio, they only listen to music, and avoid talk radio at all costs.

BB-Idaho said...

OK, I'll discuss further: News is news...what is there to be fair or balanced? Let's say someone goes berserk and shoots up a McDonalds:
the news is 4 injured, 2 dead. That's the part I accept. Now the talking heads 'analyse' the crap out of it..this means we need gun control, this means we should arm
everyone, this means the cops should have known, ad infinitum. IMHO we need to separate reporters from opinionators. Being sort of a junkie, I watch most all networks, including Fox and PBS, scan the blogs, research the internet. I think a lot of people do. They may come to different conclusions. Recall Patton's Dictum? "If everybody thinks alike, then somebody isn't thinking." Hence, if we disagree with the news, blame MSM..kill the messenger. One last example: the president gives a speech on all TV channels. That's news. Afterwards, the talking heads discuss it: that's opinion & spin.
And should be taken as such. Ever notice before 24 hour news stations and talk radio there actually was 'just news'?

E. I. Sanchez said...

Great Comment by Neil...

I was going to comment on the same comment from Prager.

Unity. As Dennis Prager stated in a recent Townhall column, "unity" means buying into his crap, otherwise you're "devisive".

We don't want unity. We want leadership.

Marshall Art said...


Thanks for stopping by. I agree with your comments, obviously. Leadership is one of the most important traits of a president and he is the face of our nation to the world. Clinton didn't lead. He held a wet finger in the air to see which way the wind blew. Bush leads by virtue of the fact that he wasn't a poll watcher and acted on his convictions. (I will say that he had his moments however.)

Between Obama and Hillary, I'd say Hillary is more of a leader since we have a better idea of what she plans to do. But Barry hasn't said a whole lot. He's seen as a leader, but he's a Pied Piper who charms those he leads and they aren't really understanding to where they're being led or so many wouldn't be following.