It was former President Bill Clinton who fired the broadside versus Barack Obama: "When is the last time we elected a president based on one year of service to the senate before he started running?" But the news networks headline read: "Obama Fires Back at Bill Clinton". It was about Barack's answer, not the substance of Clinton's statement. It was another Obama headline; added media mileage for the one year Senator, who implies that his 10 years of "involvement" in government is enough to become President. Such is the magnitude of support being given by the GOP controlled networks or those sympathetic to Republicans, for Barack Obama.
Hilllary makes the news when its negative (planted question, Drug use of Obama, divisive personality); or media editorializes the news by saying things like "tentative, unsure, sputtering campaign, and similar biases. In Iowa and New Hampshire, Republicans have joined the campaign of Obama versus Hillary Clinton, just to get her out of the race.This is the Republican card Obama is playing with and the only reason they support him is because they are so scared of Hillary. She could beat any Republican candidate with ease. They also know that Obama's huge inexperience will be ammo for them when they start blasting him to smithereens. They already have the dope on him but want it to appear as if they are not concerned, for the moment. The Republicans will certainly use his color and muslim education as a potent combination to scare the largely conservative American electorate, similar to the moral scare tactic used against John Kerry.
Obama gave a weak reply, but there was no comment on it by the networks. If I had one
year experience as a teller in a bank, would that qualify me to become bank president? This is a no brainer really yet it is the gist of Barack's retort. Sure I have 10-12 years "invovement" through depositing and withdrawing, isn't that enough? Certainly not. If Democrats cannot see the logic here, then they have been dumbed beyond repair. They deserve to lose.
Barack goes on to say that there might be something lurking in his past none of those with 20 year histories in politics have. Sure there is, mistakes-costly ones and deadly ones. Inexperience is the mother of grand errors, if not stupidity. And he used the term "lurking" which is a sleazy word. What Obama has are nice rhetorics that will no doubt inspire the uninitiated, but not a shred of "GOVERNING" experience. This makes a lot of difference, and Bill Clinton is right in implying that its too big a risk. The experience in winning a campaign is not the same as running the government. A truly intelligent and honest man knows that. Obama doesn't seem to, neither does Oprah.
Its not that Hillary Clinton should be the Democrat candidate solely for the sake of winnability, but the world cannot take another four year term (perhaps even 8) of Corporate America; the oppressive, domineering, uncaring, and murderous band of monsters with an insatiable appetite for greed that goes with a Republican Administration. Yet they are all God Loving, Bible Reading, Gospel Preaching, Righteous Men. Perhaps they are, its just probably inconspicuous.
Haaarrrwwk...Twooooph...Ting!
Hilllary makes the news when its negative (planted question, Drug use of Obama, divisive personality); or media editorializes the news by saying things like "tentative, unsure, sputtering campaign, and similar biases. In Iowa and New Hampshire, Republicans have joined the campaign of Obama versus Hillary Clinton, just to get her out of the race.This is the Republican card Obama is playing with and the only reason they support him is because they are so scared of Hillary. She could beat any Republican candidate with ease. They also know that Obama's huge inexperience will be ammo for them when they start blasting him to smithereens. They already have the dope on him but want it to appear as if they are not concerned, for the moment. The Republicans will certainly use his color and muslim education as a potent combination to scare the largely conservative American electorate, similar to the moral scare tactic used against John Kerry.
Obama gave a weak reply, but there was no comment on it by the networks. If I had one
year experience as a teller in a bank, would that qualify me to become bank president? This is a no brainer really yet it is the gist of Barack's retort. Sure I have 10-12 years "invovement" through depositing and withdrawing, isn't that enough? Certainly not. If Democrats cannot see the logic here, then they have been dumbed beyond repair. They deserve to lose.Barack goes on to say that there might be something lurking in his past none of those with 20 year histories in politics have. Sure there is, mistakes-costly ones and deadly ones. Inexperience is the mother of grand errors, if not stupidity. And he used the term "lurking" which is a sleazy word. What Obama has are nice rhetorics that will no doubt inspire the uninitiated, but not a shred of "GOVERNING" experience. This makes a lot of difference, and Bill Clinton is right in implying that its too big a risk. The experience in winning a campaign is not the same as running the government. A truly intelligent and honest man knows that. Obama doesn't seem to, neither does Oprah.
Its not that Hillary Clinton should be the Democrat candidate solely for the sake of winnability, but the world cannot take another four year term (perhaps even 8) of Corporate America; the oppressive, domineering, uncaring, and murderous band of monsters with an insatiable appetite for greed that goes with a Republican Administration. Yet they are all God Loving, Bible Reading, Gospel Preaching, Righteous Men. Perhaps they are, its just probably inconspicuous.Haaarrrwwk...Twooooph...Ting!
No comments:
Post a Comment