This night, publicity build-up wise, was all about Bill Clinton's speech. Very telling that Obama (who definitely does not like the Clintons) would permit the Old Man to take such a prominent role at this (Obama's) convention. It shows most starkly Obama's realization that he's in real danger in the November election, even if he does still cling (in my opinion) to about a 55% chance of winning reelection even despite his
terrible presidency (the reasons for that are multi-factorial and well beyond the scope of tonight's post).
So this was "Big Dog" Windbag's night, and it got me thinking: Does anyone else reading this post even know whom the other speakers are (Sandra Sponge Fluke and Medicine Moll Elizabeth Warren)??? I do, but I follow this crap every day ("God" help me for that -- as boos, hisses and catcalls suddenly emanate from the democrat party convention floor). If you couldn't care less about Fluke and Warren, then feel free to skip on down to #3 below for my thoughts on Slick Willie tonight...
1.
Sandra Fluke (Obama surrogate, prophylactic fanatic, and Georgetown law student):
C-. Very short speech, with very little memorable, for better
or for worse. Methinks the democrat party wisely limited her so that she would have little time to gush much in the way of provocatively left-wing social policy blather. These folks at the democrat party, after all, are
very good at hiding whom they really are and what they truly believe and want to accomplish. Yet, I still noted a few nuggets from Fluke in her seemingly 2-minute speech: She broadly cast the gop-er party as being made up of a bunch of "bigoted extreme voices."
Pot meet kettle, BC babe! She also credited Obama as "having our back." That's actually a very true statement from
her perspective. I've often said that if you're an American leftist 20 percenter (
i.e. the base of the democrat party), then Obama's probably been a pretty good president for ya. But what about the other 80% of us?!?
2.
Elizabeth Warren (Massachusetts U.S. Senate candidate and proud Native American):
C+. Now
here's a bona fide devout leftist 20 percenter. Remember when Obama told us that if you have a successful small business, "you didn't build that" -- rather the federal government necessarily played an integral role? Well, Obama
stole that line of thinking straight from Warren, who first spewed it a year or more earlier. (She should tell Barry sometime, "Get your own damn material!"). But Obama could come right back at her, as she used Obama's favorite leftist catchphrase, "fair share," over and over tonight. But I'll say one thing about Warren as a speaker: That she
really believes in the leftist agenda definitely comes across, and very sincerely. It's a world view that I have long ago eschewed, but if you can look me in the eye and convince me that you truly believe all that stuff, then at least I won't ya a liar (all highly sketchy past Native American ancestry claims aside), and I'm also liable to add a "+" to your speech grade.
3.
Bill Clinton (President Slimeball himself and probably the most talented pure politician and political performer that I've seen in my lifetime):
B+. To this day, the sleazy yet talented and hugely popular Bubba remains the only presidential candidate from either party for whom I have ever voted (albeit that was back when I was just a stupid, only partially educated kid in 1992). Clinton tonight was his usual charismatic (and usual highly long-winded) self, doing his best to conjure up old images and sounds from 15-20 years ago concerning the successful aspects of his 1990s presidency (and the reasons for them), as well as to apologize for Obama's failure to create any such successes himself (
e.g., balanced budgets, bipartisan welfare reform, etc.). (My favorite line from Clinton tonight was "[we can't afford a]
double down on trickle down" -- an outstanding catchphrase that I wish I'd thought of and written myself, frankly).
Only problem? Clinton and Obama are two radically different presidents. Clinton, largely a non-ideologue, was driven always by the polls and his own popularity, by an incessant fixation on whether history would remember his presidency as a success. So when the gop-ers roared to a shocking House majority in 1994 as a rebuke to the policies of the first two years of Clinton's presidency, Clinton made a sharp turn to the political center and bipartisanship, resulting in his easy reelection in 1996. Obama, when faced with a complete 1994 repeat in 2010, took the opposite approach: He doubled down on his leftist agenda much like the devoted leftist ideolgue that he is, quite content to allow the two years that followed to be an illustration of some of the very worst Washington gridlock in American history...
Listen folks, we won't reach a balanced budget or ever start reducing our stifling $16 trillion national debt until we have two willing parties in DC full of conviction to get those things done. The right-winger gop-er party has showed scant interest in achieving such results in recent years,
but likewise has Obama and his far-leftist controlled democrat party.
I think Clinton is a scuz, and I don't like the man, but after the two terrible presidents we've seen the past 12 years, I've resorted to saying in the past few years, "I'd actually take Clinton," at least compared to what we've had. I doubt much of any statement could possibly be more telling concerning the pathetic double whammy these two shameful parties have foisted on us for 12 long years now. Will America ever recover, I often ask nowadays. Ain't lookin' so good, truth be told. And no amount of dusting off of old fossils like Bill Clinton is going change any of that.
I'M THE RAGER, AND I APPROVED THIS POST
Posts
