Friday, May 16, 2008

Obama vs Clinton in a nutshell
He’s slightly to the left, but not much difference on policy really.

She has more experience.
She’s been a senator longer.
She has a better chance against McCain.
True. I got that one wrong. Paul Begala’s right.
The nomination will be decided by the super delegates and there is no compelling legal, logical, political or moral reason why they should vote for Obama.

From their own perspective, they should vote for Hillary because she has the better chance in November.

Hillary is less likely to serve two terms since she lacks O’s Pied Piper-like hypnotic ability and Teflon suit.
Got that from reading Carl Bernstein. She’s not the monster the establishment conservatives made her out to be 15 years ago but has the faults of other modern liberals including Obama. Her well-meant (based on her real Methodist faith which she doesn’t exploit) but wrong social crusading feeds a kind of arrogance (obey your natural betters; we’re above the law) and, not that it should matter, but even back in her early days practising law she didn’t have charisma and was relegated to non-jury work. She’s self-righteous and shrill. And let’s face it, self-promoting. She’s Reese Witherspoon in Election.

The LRC blog gets it of course. The whole campaign is bollocks.
Petulant preachers, flag pins and endearing, old-fashioned language are the main campaign issues. Not mass murder and crimes against the Constitution.
Bush isn’t much good as a golfer, either. He’s managed to get himself into one nasty sand-trap.
I sure wish he’d go back to playing golf, and stop being president instead.
Fair-mindedness from NPR?
They interviewed Ron Paul on the air

Not news
The Republicans have been collectivists at least since the Cold War

No comments:

Post a Comment

Leave comment