How dare you vote against the Clintons
Barack Obama won the South Carolina Democratic Primary yesterday. When he did so, the Clinton reaction reminded me of two things. The first is why I think the Clintons are singularly wicked people. The second is why I am proud to be a Republican.Bill Clinton on Barack Obama's victory in South Carolina:
"Jesse Jackson won South Carolina twice, in '84 and '88. And he ran a good campaign. Senator Obama's run a good campaign here, he’s run a good campaign everywhere.”
The implication here is clear-Bill (and doubtless his wife) believes Barack Obama won the South Carolina Primary because he is black. How dare black voters (or anyone else) vote against the Clintons after "all we've done for you." Bill Clinton was the first black President, remember?
The Clintons believe the Democratic base owes Hillary the nomination because she is Bill Clinton's wife. Aside from being in the Senate, her "experience" is that she was First Lady of the Land for eight years. If she had more experience than that, then all of our jokes about Hillary being the one who was running the country were very likely the truth-and now voters are indicating that they do not want her to have a third term. The Clintons are dangerous people not only because they are uppity, aging, upper-class former hippies with an ax to grind, but because these people believe themselves entitled to power. They see the Presidency as some toy with which they can play as if they were naughty children.
For all of the Clintons' past talk about equality and racial healing, we now see that this kind of talk for them is what it is for most of the Democratic leadership apparatus-talk designed to milk the African-American vote, and nothing more. Black voters ought to pay close attention and ask themselves if these people are really as devoted to their interests as they had previously been led to believe.
I do not support Barack Obama and I will not vote for him because I don't agree with him on the issues, my vote is in no way predicated upon his skin color. At least in the Republican Party race is not such an obsession that we feel the need to pander cheaply to this ethnic group or that one-than when those groups don't vote our way we don't feel the need to whine about having lost because of being white. It is one of the great things about being Republican-in our party, everyone really is treated as an equal.
As for the Clintons, I can be proud of being Republican because I don't have to worry about such snotty, uppity white trash being made the nominee of my party.
Labels: Presidential Election
posted by Deacon David Oatney @ 2:26 AM
4 Comments:
David,
Most political observers did expect an Obama victory. However, I don't think anyone thought he’d win by 29 points. He beat Clinton and Edwards combined. His vote totals were more than John McCain and Mike Huckabee combined! The fact is more Dems voted for Obama yesterday than voted in the entire 2004 South Carolina Democratic Primary. Furthermore, Obama received more votes than W received when he beat McCain in 2000.
Now, I'm not Nov '08 for Obama (not yet anyway) but number like these don't bode well for the GOP in November. People want something different this time around and GOP candidates are simlply regurgitating old ideas, failed ideas and so on. Anything different will incur the wrath of the GOP establishment, right-wing radio and so on. Look at the savaging that Ron Paul is getting for his position on Iraq and his approach to Foriegn Policy. The majority of Americans want us out of Iraq and yet all the GOP candidates (with the exception of Paul) want to stay. How does that work???
This cycle we have one of the weakest slates of GOP candidates ever.
SteveMule
Steve,
If you think that Paul's stance on Iraq is the only problem he has with fellow Republicans, you're not really paying attention.
Personally, I can't get over the fact that he looks way too much like that Applewhite fella from the Heaven's Gate cult.
Oh my gosh, Matt! That's so true! I'm laughing my self silly with that image.
I never thought about it before, but you're so right.
I should post pictures of both with a caption saying "Separated at birth."
Matt,
You missed my point by concentrating your attention on my comments concerning Paul. I simply picked one (or two) thing(s) about each to illustrate my point. My point being that all this bickering among Conservatives and/or Republicans is because the GOP slate of candidates are so weak. All this fussing about who is more conservative, who is truely conservative, who is the true heir of Goldwater/Reagan is pointless - none of them are perfect (or even close). Look at the vote totals; total Repubs voting versus total Dems voting. There simply is no real excitment on the Repub side and no Repub candidate is (so far) capable of causing any excitment. This does not bode well for you in November.
SteveMule
Post a Comment
<< Home