Thursday, January 18, 2007

Saint Obama

Starbucks this morning, Judy speaking: “I think it would be great to have a black president, like Barack Obama.” Sue: “He sure does have charisma.” Me: “But he has not accomplished very much.”

Judy, again: “He is older than John Kennedy was when he was elected.”

Joan Vennochi: “Barack Obama is making headway in presidential politics by following a formula John F. Kennedy would appreciate: promise change, ooze charisma, and downplay experience. While Obama has a good model to follow, he has a way to go before he deserves billing as the next JFK.”

And so it went.

People are just getting to know Obama, who has only been in the Senate for two years. The media treat him like a rock star and it’s nicely symbolic that Obama chose the day of the season premiere of “American Idol” to launch his presidential exploratory committee. To some secularists he is a saint; more on that later.

Let’s take a look at the guy. Barack Hussein Obama Jr. (Yep, his middle name is the same as Saddam’s last name.) was born of a white mother from Kansas and a black father from Kenya. Media people call Barack “black” or “African American” for several reasons (See Judy above for one.), including his own preference for those labels.

Black author Debra Dickerson called “the swooning from white people” about Obama “a paroxysm of self-congratulation.” We good!

But black activists are not so sure. Harry Belafonte, who called Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice “house slaves” on the Bush plantation, says America needs to be “careful” about Obama, according to the London Times: Hmmm.

One of Barack’s problems is …… (hushed tones) … He smokes. “The party that reveres the memory of Franklin D. Roosevelt, who jauntily flaunted his smokes in a fancy little cigarette holder, now is the first to exile those who pollute their own lungs. Senator, snuff it out!” Is he going to be in trouble for subjecting his little girl children to second-hand smoke?


Another problem, this I have on good authority, is that he is NOT Hillary. That’s right -- the Hollywood libs who paved the way for the female (Hillary) presidency with a Gina Davis preview, now have a BIG problem.

DreamWorks moguls Steven Spielberg and David Geffen and actor-ivists George Clooney and Barbra Streisand, forked over $2 grand each to Obama's Senate campaign, and Clooney proclaimed an Obama presidential bid “would be the most electrifying thing to happen to the Democratic Party since Kennedy.” But all of these Hollywood intellectuals also donated to Clinton's Senate bids, so it's unclear which way they'll go. It surely portends trouble in liberal city.

On a more serious note, there is the matter of Obama’s position on human life. Occasionally an aborted baby lives and, under the care of compassionate doctors and nurses, grows to be a healthy child. Such disregard for the intent of the woman is, of course, anathema to NOW and not to be allowed. Thus when the Illinois Legislature voted on a bill (the “Induced Infant Liability Act”) to make sure that doctors provide care to such unusual babies, some women’s groups opposed vehemently, and Senator Obama voted with them. It was important to him to let the babies die.

Obama’s radical stance on abortion puts him further to the left than even NARAL Pro-Choice America. That same year a similar federal law, the “Born Alive Infant Protection Act,” was signed by President Bush. Only 15 members of the U.S. House opposed it, and it passed the Senate unanimously. When the federal bill was being debated, NARAL released a statement that said, “NARAL does not oppose passage of the “Born Alive Infants Protection Act” ... since floor debate served to clarify the bill’s intent and assure us that it is not targeted at Roe v. Wade or a woman’s right to choose.”

This is a troubling issue, that is for sure.

Is Obama one of the liberal elitists who have used the courts to ram social change down our throats without regard to the democratic process. Does he believe activist judges should interpret the Constitution through a left-wing prism and the people should have no say in such matters? Most liberals believe so.

And is Obama tough enough? A president must have the credentials and the worldview to be a credible leader. He must be respected, even feared, by those who want to destroy America. Will he be like “Hillary's co-president, Bill, who lavished a Michael Jordan-autographed basketball on Kim Jong Il -- in hopes of keeping North Korea away from nukes?” Will Putin eat him for breakfast?



27 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

People who have wonderful memories of John Kennedy are finding the junior senator from Illinois to be quite attractive. I think he needs more experience on the national and international level before being seriously considered for the White House.

I voted for John Kennedy in 1960; absentee from Oregon. But Nixon took the state anyway, so, at least, I can say that I was not one of those who elected the man whom I hope, someday, will get the credit he deserves -- getting us embroiled in the Vietnam War.

Lyndon Johnson once said: "John Kennedy had the style, but I'm the one who got the Bills through Congress."

Mike

6:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bill, that was a pretty fair piece, except for the "Yep, his middle name is the same as Saddam's...."
I'll balance that with another unfair low blow: I wonder if that'll be the 'real killer' among the low-IQ set.

Burt

6:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And, let us not forget his middle name.

Dave

6:59 PM  
Blogger Mahndisa S. Rigmaiden said...

01 18 07

Hey Bill:
I answered your question about my whereabouts on my latest post;) As to Mr. Barak, he has charm. That is all. As to his smoking, so what!!! Those self righteous Dems are ridiculous and probably have money in tobacco stocks themselves. Shucks, my question is what brand of cigarrette he smokes. If he smokes mamsy pamsy cigarrettes, then that reveals a bit about his character. hehehehehe This is from a smoker of Parliament Lights...

Anyway, his stance on life is abhorrent. I decided a long time ago that I would NEVER vote for anyone who was pro choice IF they had any say in policy construction on the matter. Therefore, Mr. Charming Smoking baby killer will not gain my support in any capacity.

And that is sad because he seems to be the textbook mold of a politician!

9:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't understand what you (Mike) wrote: "I voted for John Kennedy in 1960; absentee from Oregon. But Nixon took the state anyway, so, at least, I can say that I was not one of those who elected the man whom I hope, someday, will get the credit he deserves--getting us embroiled in the Vietnam War." This sounds like you are saying that Nixon got the USA into the Viet Nam war. If that is what you are saying, I would like you to explain it. Was he, perhaps, in the Gulf of Tonkin?

One of the major attractions about Obama is that he is NOT Hillary, or any of the others from either party. The level of "disaffection" for both of the major parties is only beginning to become apparent. There have been several calls for formation of one or two new parties for the 2008 election, including by influential Republicans and Democrats.

It would be nice to have a "Black" president and get past that issue. (The same could be said for having a woman president. I might have voted for the Genna Davis character. For one thing, she was an independent.) Another thing that is attractive about Obama is that he is none of the old line Black Leaders still hanging on from the 1960s. Again, I think a great many people want to vote for "NONE OF THE ABOVE!!!"

Another "attractive" thing about Obama is that he has not even named the major problems facing this country. Therefore he has not revealed whether or not he even understands what those are, much less what he would propose to do about them. That puts him ahead of all the rest.

None of this is to be taken as endorsement of Obama. On that, we shall see.

Jay

10:11 PM  
Blogger Bill Lama said...

Jay,
I think you misunderstood Mike. He voted for Kennedy, but Nixon took his State, so Mike has no culpability for electing the man responsible for "getting us embroiled in the Vietnam War." It seems like a weasily excuse to me. But then I too voted for Kennedy.

The Dems were on the wrong side of history twice in the Vietnam incident. First for getting us into it, then for fighting it stupidly, then for abandoning our allies after promising to supply weapons and money. OK, thrice.

I gotta agree that Obama is infinitely preferrable to Hillary. And he is a refreshing change from the black dinosaurs like Jesse Jackson. Now if he would join up with black leaders like Bill Cosby, Thomas Sowell and Ward Connerly.... One can hope.

10:13 PM  
Blogger Bill Lama said...

Hey Mahndisa,
It's great to see your happy face.

I used to smoke non-filtered Camels... no mamsy pamsy cigs for me. Quit 40 years ago... still miss em sometimes.

I think you've convinced me not to vote for "Mr. Charming Smoking baby killer."

10:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hillary is worse than Obama for sure, but he is NOT the man I want as president.

What makes black black? His father? Why is he considered to be "black" and not "white" if his mother is white? Or should we call him gray?

Helen

10:25 PM  
Blogger Mattress said...

I just thought of a disturbing prospect: Clinton/Obama '08 or Obama/Clinton, whichever you prefer.

Yikes!

6:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bill,

Interesting that everyone focuses on Obama's "inexperience". In fact he was elected a state senator in Illinois in 1996. This means that, if elected president in 2008, he'll have thirteen years of experience in elected offices before his elevation. The current disastrous incumbent of the presidency had six years of experience (plus a lot of years in various failed business ventures) before he became president. By comparison, Obama seems amply-qualified!

Tex

8:33 AM  
Blogger SactoDan said...

Move over UNPresident Kerry, the new UNPresident has been annointed, UnPresident Obama.

Until Kerry made his slight of the military, he was frequently quoted when there was a Bush policy to counter. Now they rush off to get Obama's take on it.

When he spoke at the Democratic convention (was that 2004?) he did in fact have what appeared to be a fresh take on things, and charisma not seen recently in leadership hungry America.

But now that he has been annointed by the media as the UnPresident, he sounds to me like he is answering reporter's questions as though some consultants have told him how to sound and look "Presidential". Nothing fresh about that.

News Flash: Jesse Jackson was quoted on CNN as saying he will almost certainly endorse Osama(as CNN has called him), I mean Obama. There goes the dinosaur theory Bill.

Plus, as Hillary gets desperate, look for her henchmen to pick through Obama's trash, and by the time they get through with him, he'll nostalgically remember when smoking and minimal experience were his only negatives.

9:05 AM  
Blogger Mahndisa S. Rigmaiden said...

01 19 07

hehehehehehe Hey Helen:
Yes we should call him a Grey charming smoking baby killer! heheheheheh

10:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Now they're starting to eat their own.

Dave

"Are the American people ready for an elected president who was educated in a Madrassa as a young boy and has not been forthcoming about his Muslim heritage?

This is the question Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s camp is asking about Sen. Barack Obama.

"He was a Muslim, but he concealed it," the source said. "His opponents within the Democrats hope this will become a major issue in the campaign."

Sources said the background check, conducted by researchers connected to Senator Clinton, disclosed details of Mr. Obama's Muslim past. The sources said the Clinton camp concluded the Illinois Democrat concealed his prior Muslim faith and education.

"The background investigation will provide major ammunition to his opponents," the source said. "The idea is to show Obama as deceptive."

1:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Obama's stance on abortion is legitimate, but to call him a baby killer? Please. Should we call those who support the war in Iraq (in which many children have died) baby killers as well? Why you wingnuts persist in finding ANY fault at all in this guy is amazing. The fact that he smokes, his middle name, I mean, stick with the issues! Whether you agree with him or not on the issues, I would say that he is probably the first serious African American contender for the Presidency in our history, and I think that speaks well for our country.

3:27 PM  
Blogger Bill Lama said...

Anony,
Did you read the above comment? It is from liberal Democrats working for Hillary Clinton. They are the wingnuts.

We conservatives think Obama's smoking and name are fine, but his radical position on abortion needs some splainin.

As for his qualifications, I could name a half dozen better qualified blacks, but none are liberal Democrats so they are all disqualified. It's too bad.

4:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

One forgets that JFK's charm was such he could get away with almost anything. Such a facility is dangerous, as people forget the real issues while they wallow in the beguiling warmth of his charm.

Sam

4:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bill's analysis concerning my voting expression is correct.
But I do want to add that there is an irony concerning Presidents and Vietnam.

1) Eisenhower placed a ceiling of 675 "advisors" in South Vietnam, but never had more than 531.

2) Kennedy rejected advice given to him separately from both MacArthur and Eisenhower: "Don't get bogged
down in a land war on the Asian Continent."

George Ball--one of Kennedy's aides at the time--quotes him as saying, after the JFK-Krushchev Summit in Paris, which was after the Bay of Pigs: "Krushchev thinks I'm weak. I've got to show him I'm tough. I'll do it in Vietnam."

George Ball also said that no one can be certain what JFK might have done after the 1964 election. One could put together quotes either way. We had c18,500 troops there at the time. I personally think he had a target year for leaving, but that carried the assumption that Amerricans would no longer have been needed then. We all know now it would not have happened that way. Kennedy would have run into all the problems about Vietnam that plagued his inheritor--Lyndon Johnson, who was initally one of the few cabinet memeber (maybe the only one) who opposed going in there at all.

But, If JFK was really intending to pull out after the 1964 election, comes the question: "Why wait until the election? Why not pull out in 1963 and save lives? If the answer was that it would hurt his 1964 chances, then comes the $ 64.00 question: "What do you think of any American President who would deliberately continue this country's involvement in a war in order to increase his chances of re-election?"

If you think that other President had done this in the past, look back through history and try to find an instance of it. You won't.

The Democrats (JFK & LBJ) were both handicapped by a carry-over impression from the 40s and 50s that Democrats were soft on Communism. A common belief was that Roosevelt gave away Eastern Europe and Truman gave away China. JFK & LBJ were both very much afraid of being accused of giving away S.E. Asia and of being the first Presdent in this nation's history to preside over a lost war.

3) The irony is that the losing candidate in 1960--Richard Nixon--is the President who ended our involvedment in this war.

I've heard Vietnam called : "Mr. Johnson's War." and "Mr. Nixon's War." But I never heard it called what it should be called: "Mr. Kennedy's War."

Mike

4:44 PM  
Blogger Bill Lama said...

Mike,
Your analysis is right on. Now, after completely messing up in Vietnam, the Democrats are about to screw up any chance we have of success in Iraq.

In fact, in a Fox News Poll 16-17 Jan 07, only 51% of Democrats want the US to succeed. I guess that counts for patriotism, but not by much of a margin.

Bill

"Do you personally want the Iraq plan President Bush announced last week to succeed?"

Yes No (Don’t know)
Overall: 63% 22 (15)
Democrats: 51% 34 (15)
Republicans: 79% 11 (10)
Independents: 63% 19 (17)

4:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is truly shocking, Bill.
How can anyone want any president's plan to fail when human lives are at stake? It's amazing how human emotions can control human thinking.

Mike

4:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bill,

Please cite one shred of evidence that the smear campaign by the right wing media is somehow connected to Hillary Clinton. Sourcing a comment on your blog does not constitute evidence.

Lester

9:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

From FreeConservative blog --

Hillary is, in essence, doing the eventual Republican Ticket a huge favor: She's going after a Black Man, and with all of the vengence that we've seen from the Clintons in the past, she will take him down.

When Hillary gets through shredding, and slicing and dicing, Osammabama's aides and handlers will pick him up with tweezers, pack him in a shoe box and ship him back to Illinois. Hell, he may even have to resign from the Senate when Hillary's opposition team really gears up and starts dropping the dirt.

Saves the Republicans from having to take him down --and getting hammered by the Left for attacking a Black Man.

I never thought I would say this, but, "Thank you Hillary."

At last, she's done the United States a service.

11:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is the Big Lie, that the liberals and Hillary Clinton are the ones digging up dirt on Obama and smearing him. It's the right wing conservative racists in the GOP who have convinced the right wing blogosphere of this lie, so that they don't have to feel guilty about expressing their bigoted views. Don't believe a word of it!

7:25 AM  
Blogger SactoDan said...

"When Hillary gets through shredding, and slicing and dicing, Osammabama's aides and handlers will pick him up with tweezers, pack him in a shoe box and ship him back to Illinois."

Dick Morris, who used to work for the Clintons has predicted as much, and look at the timing, Hillary had to act before Obama used up all the oxygen in the race.

I am registered as a decline to state, and I think reregistering a demorat to vote for Obama, and switching back is a good strategy.

I think I prefer a black muslim to a disgusting Hillary.

I can't even imagine the US with Hillary as President and Pelosi as speaker.

I wonder if there is a vacancy next door to Jonny Depp?

12:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Aw, c'mon. At the bottom of this "message", it says "no virus found in this message." Bull, Bill, the thing is one giant virus.

It's another example of the depths that have been played in the recent past and will certainly be played in this campaign and in the future.
"Hillary's campaign." Uh huh. Uh huh. Uh huh. Uh, nuh.

"Sources said".....used about 10 times. Now let's say that in this great day of unlimited communication that my friend Bill Lama decides to run for XYZ on the Republican ticket. Seems pretty formidable, but Bill's opponent party decides "We gotta shoot this guy down, let's put together a cannon shot and imply--no, let's state--that the dirty work was done by Bill's primary competitor for the Republican nomination..." And within hours those who want to deride poor ole Bill have sent it around to all the blogs and to all their friends, and...pretty tough, politics today. It may be that 100% of the message is true, but the way it's portrayed there's no-way-to-answer w/o giving it even more play and credence.

At some point someone may have the guts to do this hatchet job verbally or face-to-face rather than using the stealth-kill, and then it may be followed by an apology. But this avenue? Aaagh.

Burt

3:33 PM  
Blogger Bill Lama said...

Burt,
My dear fellow, do you mean to say that this must be a vast right wing conspiracy because the Clintons would never sink so low?

Think about it rationally. Obama is far more a threat to Hillary than he is to the GOP. We would love to run against him: an unqualified, radical pro-choice, radical gun control, radical open borders, radical internationalist ... Muslim?... The 2008 election would be a cakewalk. In fact there is a movement afoot among Republicans to register as Dems in the primary to vote for him. I'm gonna do it. To the GOP, Hillary is much more dangerous than Barack.

Meanwhile, Obama is sucking the oxygen from the Clinton campaign, attracting the money people in Hollywood and elsewhere, attracting the Michael Moore - Goerge Sorros fringe, and the blacks, maybe Hispanics, maybe single women.... He could beat her! Oh joy!

So my conclusion is that this most-likely-true hatchet job is being perpetrated by those with the most to gain, Hillary's and Bill's pals. I may be wrong, we shall see. How about a little bet?

3:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bill,

Interesting stuff. But you're ignoring the obvious weakness on the Republican side. The only candidate the Democrats fear is McCain and he's going to be history when the Iraq troop "Surge" (now known as the McCain doctrine) fails, which everyone knows it will. It's amazing that the Decider will have anihilated McCain twice in his political career. Giuliani's pro-choice and has so much personal baggage (cheating on his cancer-ridden wife etc etc) that the true wingnuts will reject him. Who does that leave? Romney? Brownback? You must almost be praying for the resurrection of Macaca or Santorum. LOL.

No. Obama, Clinton and Edwards will fight it out, and the winner will be Pres. And Iraq will have buried the Republicans, just as it did two months ago.

Tex

5:28 PM  
Blogger Bill Lama said...

Ah Tex,
If only I knew you I'd offer to make a big bet on the 2008 election. I'd love to take your money.

Obama, Edwards have no chance, except in a Dem primary. Hillary will get it.... and will unite Republicans and Independents like nobody else. Then Romney will beat her like a drum.

IMHO.

6:49 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home