Hillary Versus Obama: Whose Lies Will Prevail?
Perhaps the most striking conclusion to be drawn from this week’s Pennsylvania Primary is that, despite its results, nothing in the Democrat Party’s currently tangled state will change. And this would have been so, no matter how the election had unfolded.
A mere win by Hillary, even with her ten-point margin over Barack Obama, was not sufficient to alter the course of this bitter race between the two liberal Democrats. Both sides assert reasons to still claim the political, as well as “moral†high ground. And neither would consider, under any circumstances, conceding the end game to the other, whether for the good of their party or the country.
For people such as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the entire charade of running and campaigning for the presidency is not about America, but about personal aggrandizement. Thus, as the old adage asserts, “The end justifies the means.†And the various “means†witnessed across America in this increasingly heated contest foretell of a chilling future for the nation, should either prevail in the November general election.
Neither of these candidates can be honest about their true accomplishments, guiding philosophies, or intentions for the nation. Were they to tell the truth, America would recoil at the prospective presidency of either an angry and embittered feminist/socialist whose obsessive quest for power knows absolutely no bounds (legal or illegal), or an angry and embittered racist/socialist whose past and present associations and loyalties reveal an irreconcilable breach from the mainstream of America.
Ultimately, the similarities between the two vastly outweigh any differences. And with each passing day, each campaign appearance, and each unintended new revelation of the heart and soul of the two, America sees an increasingly ugly visage of genuine liberalism. As such, a possible victory by either candidate in November cannot signify anything good for the nation.
The latest flap over Obama’s association with former leftist terrorist William Ayers is an outstanding and telling example. Clearly, Obama has been neither ignorant of, nor affronted by Ayers’ virulently anti-American beliefs, or the vicious manner in which he acted on those beliefs. Rather, Obama seeks to make the case that somehow this relationship is irrelevant to the present day. Furthermore he vainly tries to deflect criticism by asserting that anyone who contends otherwise is merely attempting to distract attention from the ostensibly important issues.
To the degree that Obama’s chief antagonist regarding Ayers happens to be Hillary Clinton and her minions, he may have a point, although certainly not an exonerating one. Hillary Clinton, along with husband Bill, inhabits the most fragile of “glass houses†from which to castigate an opponent over sordid relationships with sinister characters and organizations.
Those who watched the antics of Bill and Hillary throughout their “co-presidency†will recall the Clinton years as a constant barrage of underhanded dealings with the Communist Chinese, their surrogates from Indonesia, or those disturbing arrangements with Puerto Rican terrorists, occurring at the most opportune time to bolster Hillary’s New York Senate campaign.
Certainly, neither the Democrat Party nor its surrogates on the nightly news would pass so glibly over a story of any aspiring Republican who might have had close ties to Timothy McVeigh or someone of an equally unsavory character. Yet both the Clintons and the Obamas drag behind them a long train of just such fetid baggage.
In an odd contrast, both Al Gore and John Kerry, the Democrat nominees during the previous two presidential election cycles, had sufficient skeletons in their closets to cause them problems during the general election season. But they now seem almost “squeaky clean†in comparison to Clinton or Obama. And certainly, the “dirt†on John McCain cannot come close to that which Clinton and Obama are uncovering in each other’s lives.
Nevertheless, the Democrat attack machine is ready for this contingency. As if to prove beyond any doubt that hypocrisy, pandering, and fraud are indeed official Democrat policy, party Chairman Howard Dean is attempting to make the case that John McCain is somehow tainted by a comment from Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo, which was critical of Pope Benedict’s stance on immigration.
The attack represents intellectual dishonesty in the extreme. But Democrat Party Chairman Howard Dean is up to the task. In a statement oozing with sanctimony, Dean asserted that “If John McCain is serious in his pledge to run a respectful campaign, he should immediately denounce Tom Tancredo’s insulting remarks about Pope Benedict.†In other words, Dean will find any possibly controversial statement from any Republican (in this case a Colorado Congressman), and attempt to hold John McCain personally responsible for it.
Forget “Reverend†Wright (Obama’s spiritual “mentorâ€) and his calls for God to curse America. Here at last is a spiritual issue worth Howard Dean’s attention. Why should Americans ever doubt the sincerity of the Democrats?
Unfortunately for Dean, such a transparent strategy is not liable to gain traction. Dean’s very selective “outrage†reeks of desperate pandering. And since when did the Democrats, who have consistently been the party of “Separation of Church and State†regarding defining issues like abortion and same sex “marriage†suddenly decide that the Pope ought to set U.S. immigration policy with no room for disagreement?
Despite Dean’s desperate attempts to rally the Democrat base, what has emerged among them in the past several months is a fractured party of self-serving “victim†groups whose members are thoroughly disinterested in the well-being of anyone outside of their camp.
Democrats in power are normally well served by such a set-up, since the allegiance of the various groups can be bought through the dispersal of federal dollars. But a campaign season in which these disparate constituencies are forced to jockey for primacy has become a nightmare for the party leaders, since by this painful process the malevolent inner workings of the Democrat Party are revealed to America. May the turmoil continue unabated until “We the People†understand the full scope of how liberalism operates and benefits itself at the nation’s expense.
| More from Chris Adamo
Stumble It!
April 26th, 2008 at 7:13 am
I beg to differ.
Obama’s conduct is typical of a machine politician, undistinguishable from any Tammany office-seeker or traditional liberal rabble rouser in the style of Huey Long. No better, no worse as to character.
However, his purpose as office-holder is far more sinister, which is to replace as many whites as possible in the social-engineering mechanism and make blacks the sole beneficiaries of intensive reparations, affirmative action programs, and endless conversations about race. Self-loathing white liberal civil rights advocates will be purged as vehemently as ex-Klansmen. Every worthless race-baiting black racist anti-semitic huckster (Maxine Waters, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Gus Savage, Sharpe James, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Donna Brazile, Spike Lee, Frances Cress Welsing, Louis Farrakhan, Mary Frances Berry, Carol Moseley Braun, Leonard Jeffries, bell hooks, Cynthia McKinney) will have a prominent place in the new power structure, and will begin the first order of business in January 2009 by settling old grudges.
More detail on the beliefs of these worthies: http://ejit-panem.blogspot.com/2005_04_01_archive.html
Hillary’s agenda is much less dangerous: merely to tax every white male to death to subsidize her distorted view of the correct society. In this, she falls comfortably among Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, FDR… and Obama.
However, she has absolutely no moral standards, no code of personal conduct whatever. She is, in the classical, medical and legal sense, a pathological liar. She lies automatically, with no thought to consequences. She does not understand that she can be detected, or that there can be consequences: she’s always right, even when she makes it up.
I can predict, with absolute certainty, that if one of these wretches achieves the office it will cause us to look upon the misdeeds of G. W. Bush with tolerance if not fondness, in much the same way that his misconduct has caused us to remember Nixon quite differently than he was.
Each layer of evil builds on the last.