Obama: Stick It In and Twist It!

If the Pennsylvania debate proved one thing, it's the state of the political landscape in which Democrats will compete come November. Unfortunately, we're like the third act heroes on too many TV shows: The villain has tortured, raped and maimed the hero's wife, child and pet hamster. The hero has the villain dead-to-rights. The villain sweats profusely, trembling in fear. Just then, the hero's trusty sidekick steps in to whisper to the hero, "If you do it like this, you're no better than he is."

At that point, I'm screaming, "Smoke the Bastard!! Shoot! Shoooooot!!

I am deathly tired of the Democratic "we don't want to win like that" attitude. I'm sick of being part of a party of losers with clean consciences. I want my Democratic candidates to out-lie, out-cheat and out-steal their Republican opponents. I want them to practice dog-whistle politics, send me private signals telling me that they don't really mean a word they're saying, and giving me confidence that their campaign soundbites are just lures for the mob. I want them to assume the asininity of the bulk of the mainstream television press corps (have you seen a TV news broadcast lately?) and use it as opposed to being used by it.

I know. I know. We're trying to "take back the system." We want a better press corps. I want to be 3 inches taller. That's not going to happen either.

Is the presidential campaign the appropriate time to try to raise the political IQ of the body politic? Maybe it's the perfect time, but only if you consider the "health of the Republic" more important than winning the Presidential election. At this stage, I don't. (And any Republican who says that he does either spent the last eight years railing against the lies and atrocities of the Bush administration, or is a stone-cold liar.)

Al Gore thought more of the health of the Republic than he did of winning the election, and he was hugely praised for his grand sacrifice--conceding an election he may well have won. The cost in blood and treasure for his love of the Republic has been enormous. I hope a lot of other Americans join me in being unwilling to pay so high a price. Our Democratic congress does not aggressively investigate this administration's potential crimes because we don't want to disrupt the Republic. We are killing the Republic with our kindness.

Barack Obama said that Hillary Clinton was "in her element" during the Monty Python scripted debate. He said that she "twist(ed) the knife a little bit... that's the lesson she learned when Republicans did it to her in the 1990s."

Come August, I suggest he invest in chain mail and a blade. And when he has his knife at his political opponent's throat, he had better grow the cajones to stick it in. If he does not, he will lose. My Gods. Imagine the price for that this time.

Comments

[TeriMcCarthy]

That is awesome I've always wanted to see modern jousting!

[Balzac]

You are absolutely right, sir. I'm am so damned tired of people who aren't aware of the stakes of this fight. Hillary Clinton is a god-damned Republican and a member of the Clintush dynasty.

[ckdogs]

I, too, am tired of losing. But there has to be a way to do it, without resorting to lies and smears, isn't there?

[Levittown]

Maybe we can get Gore to try again if he promises to go for the jugular. But it must be a pledge to God and not the run of the mill " political promise " .

[jrysk]

The thing to pay attention to now is Evelyn Pringle's landmark series of articles at opednews on the Rezko (Auchi) Obama Blagojevich gang. These are very important articles because they are starting to pin down the chronology, which will make it possible to ask Obama detailed questions he will not be able to avoid.


It's pretty obvious by now that he's a cheap punk and hood, just an organized crime front. We know now that FBI moles have logs of Obama, Rezko and Blagojevich meetings. The question now is,


What was said at those meetings?


Pringle's work is making it clearer and clearer that illegal activities were agreed on during those meetings. Obama's stand right now is that he does not keep a "calendar" of meetings.


Obviously unresponsive. Did he meet with these two? What was said at those meetings?


It is SUBSEQUENT actions--which Pringle is discovering, at considerable risk to her personal security, I might add--which are the vital clues as to what as agreed to at those meetings. These subsequent actions will make it possible to put to Obama, specific questions about his agreement to vote for certain projects, his understanding and agrrement that others and himself would receive money in return for votes, and his understanding and agreement that other individuals pay "finder's fees" to Rezko or other fronts.