In 2004, Democrats thought they had it all set up. Convinced that America hated President Bush as much as they did, they figured that all they had to do was avoid a complete disaster for a candidate. Unfortunately, History showed that the entire Democrat selection shared that quality.
Unsure about what went wrong but convinced that the problem could not be that President Bush was actually respected and supported by most of the nation in that election, the Democrats examined their methodology and decided that the 'jump to conclusions and grab the first candidate who makes them breathe heavy' plan was still the way to go, and in addition to keeping their front-loaded primary schedule for 2008 they agreed that qualifications for their nominee must depend heavily on the public whim. Acknowledging that John Forbes Kerry was the party's second straight disaster for a nominee, and the fourth such ridiculous submission from the Jackass Party in the last five Presidential tries, they also tried a hard reverse on several points:
Whereas John Kerry was clearly a horse-faced old white man, and a veteran of the War in Vietnam, the current Democrats are more than slightly enamoured of Barack Obama, an attractive young black man who probably couldn't find Vietnam on a map. Where Kerry was most well-known as a back-stabbing traitor who falsely accused his fellow soldiers of atrocities, Obama is careful to praise the military, if only in platitudes. Where Kerry could not order lunch without offending someone, Obama is articulate and charming. Where Kerry's roots were in the most elite sections of Massachusetts, Obama boasts of his Chicago roots, as if he were an ordinary working-class man. Where most folks would expect Kerry to hang out with Ted Kennedy, they would expect Obama to chill with Oprah. And where Kerry thought his name would help him, Obama is already working hard to keep his name from being a factor.
Beneath the surface, however, the Democrats' preference in personal qualities continues to be a constant. Both Kerry and Obama have voting records which support Socialist economic policies and try to impede the Military and our Intelligence agencies from doing their jobs. Both avoid naming any specific polices they would support as President, or any doctrines they would pronounce in leading America. Neither is known for sponsoring significant legislation, nor is either a heavyweight in the Senate in terms of getting things done. Both men are essentially ornamental, rather than practical, from dress to function. Both hope to win election through public resentment of the present leadership, rather than any personal character or plan of action on their part. Both refuse to answer tough questions, and both get kid glove treatment from the Mainstream Media, especially network television. Both have a habit of disappearing when Hillary enters the room.
I would not bet money on an Obama Presidency anytime soon.
Permalink | Send To A Friend | Linking Blogs | Digg this!
Filed under:
2008 Presidential Race
Comments (6)
Obama does meet the single ... (Below threshold)1. Posted by P. Bunyan | January 18, 2007 11:15 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Obama does meet the single most important qualification for being a democrat Presidential candidate- he is a smooth talking, straight faced liar. A reaaly good liar.
Kerry, Gore, Dukakis, & Mondale were all shifty and not really good at lying and they lost.
Clinton was a polished, practiced, professional, strait faced liar and he won twice. If the democrats are capable of learning anything, Obama has an excellent chance at the nomination. Hillary is much closer to the group I cited in the above paragraph.
1. Posted by P. Bunyan | January 18, 2007 11:15 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 18, 2007 11:15
2. Posted by ba | January 18, 2007 12:23 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
And here's the good news. If "Obama" rhymes with Osama - get the democrat nomination or if Hillary does, if those 2 are ALL the democrat party has to choose from in terms of leadership well...
nuf said.
2. Posted by ba | January 18, 2007 12:23 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 18, 2007 12:23
3. Posted by Jim Addison | January 18, 2007 2:45 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Obama's supporters are countering the criticism about his near-total lack of experience by - get this - comparing him to Abraham Lincoln!
True, Lincoln did have only brief service in the Illinois legislature before running for President, but the job wasn't the administrative nightmare back then. The whole federal budget was under $60 million, and over 80% of the civilian employees worked for the Post Office (principally as deputy postmasters and clerks, most of which were part-time positions).
I do see some similarities between Lincoln and Obama besides the mere lack of experience, though: they are both from Illinois and both have big ears.
3. Posted by Jim Addison | January 18, 2007 2:45 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 18, 2007 14:45
4. Posted by Buckeye | January 18, 2007 3:04 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Hussein Obama is more like John Kennedy, all charisma and nothing else. But with the MSM behind him covering up his past, and reinventing him, don't count him out. You give the American people too much credit for intelligence.
4. Posted by Buckeye | January 18, 2007 3:04 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 18, 2007 15:04
5. Posted by Scrapiron | January 18, 2007 9:46 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Just want to be the first to say "told you so". Osama Hussein Obama is a full blown member of the Muslem faith. Trained in some of what is now the worst of the worst American hater mosque's. How many years have the muslems plotted to take over the white house with the assistance of the dhimmi dimwits help. One up for Hillary's crew that outed him.
ROFL
5. Posted by Scrapiron | January 18, 2007 9:46 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 18, 2007 21:46
6. Posted by ba | January 18, 2007 11:20 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
The democrats are proud of Abraham Lincoln and trying to project Lincoln to Obama? Ironic..
1. because Abraham Lincoln was from the Republican party. You mean the democrats have no upstanding person of the past from their own party? 2. Abraham Lincoln was a man of deep faith in God. In fact One of Lincoln's earliest statements on the subject of his faith came in 1846: "That I am not a member of any Christian church is true; but I have never denied the truth of the Scriptures; and I have never spoken with intentional disrespect of religion in general, or of any denomination of Christians in particular....I do not think I could myself be brought to support a man for office whom I knew to be an open enemy of, or scoffer at, religion." [July 31, 1846]
Obama's record on being pro-choice to a mortal being's right to abort, speaks volumes on his FULL DEVOTION first and foremost - to the Creator of Life. His record of approving 'gay' unions speaks of his confusion on the sacredness of LOVE, that LOVE is not an action but THE SPIRIT OF GOD in a soul. That 'intimacy' of married LOVE that produces a new soul is only possible when the CREATOR, GOD - SPIRIT is at work with the 2 who 'give of self' for pro-creation (no subjective criticisms of when 2 90 year olds marry please) We know the OBJECTIVE of real love, don't we. Obama's confusion that an embryo is man's to do with as he wishes when there is a GOD who is SUPREME...well, it says much on Obama's understanding of a FAITH in GOD, who is ultimately in charge of all life.
Democrats applauding Lincoln and projecting Lincoln to Obama? mmm. Seems I can't see it.
6. Posted by ba | January 18, 2007 11:20 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 18, 2007 23:20