The meteoric rise of Barack Obama has been hailed as unprecedented and difficult to explain. That his trajectory has been unprecedented may be true, but hardly difficult to explain. Let's face it. Barack Obama has something for everyone. Just consider:
He's a man -- This fact alone raises the interest of nearly 100% of American voters. Most male American voters (and not a few female voters) will NEVER vote for a woman if given another choice. In addition, a significant number of voters who are female (and perhaps some of the 2 million gay men out there) are also interested in the fact that he's a man, but for a very different reason.He's a black man -- Which raises the interest of at least 12.3% of the American population which, according to Census Statistics, consider themselves to be African-American. And it further raises the interest of the female (and gay male) population (because everyone's heard the rumors about black men).He's "attractive" -- Which still further increases his sex appeal.He's thin -- And "thin is in". Again this increases his sex appeal, but it also raises the interest of those who market weight-loss and diet products ("Be like Barack... buy my product").He's young -- This not only adds to his (you guessed it) sex appeal, but it also awakens the interest of those first-time voters who cannot seem to identify with any of the "mainstream" (read: 'old fart') Washington politicos.He's only half-black -- A fact which appeals to all of those white racists among us.His white ancestors were slave-owners -- A fact which attracts those Southerners whose ancestors were equally disposed.He's an OREO -- A fact which appeals to cookie-lovers of all generations.His last name is Obama -- Which (often confused with "Osama") appeals to radical Islamists.His middle name is Hussein -- Which (often confused with Saddam) will allow him to "dictate" to the Iraqis our new strategy of "cut and run" should he be elected.He was raised Muslim -- Having been taught in a Wahabbist Madrassa allows him to understand and "identify" with our Islamic enemies.He's now a Christian -- A fact which attracts right-wing evangelicals who may naively assume that he has now "seen the light" for other than political reasons.He's a Democrat -- Which makes him of interest to (D'OH) Democrats (...and some RINOs).He's a Senator -- Which makes him equal in stature to the likes of John F. Kerry, Mary Landrieu, Robert (KKK) Byrd, and Robert Torricelli.He's authored no legislation -- Which means he cannot be blamed for any BAD legislation.He's never been a governor -- Which means that he has never offended an entire state all at one time.He has no foreign policy experience -- But he lived in another country once (and he likes to travel). Why heck, me too!He's held no leadership roles -- Which means he's never been a BAD leader.He's got little experience -- So, he hasn't had time to be "tainted" yet.He didn't vote to use force in Iraq -- Because he wasn't even elected until 2004.He's a lawyer -- Which means that... well... some lawyers might like him.He's articulate -- Which means that he speaks 'weller' than George W. Bush.He's "clean" -- Which means (I guess) that he bathes regularly and doesn't offend.He's the "first" clean, articulate black leader -- Which means that Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Ralph Abernathy, Martin Luther King Jr, and even Frederick Douglass were all dirty, blathering idiots.He's a quick wit -- When attacked by the "pig lady" from Arkansas recently, he was quick to defend himself and parry with his own rhetorical barb.He identifies himself with Abraham Lincoln -- So he's audacious AND pretentious (good qualities for a politician).He's written 2 books -- So the East Coast intellectuals love him.He's taken drugs (and he even inhaled) -- So he's got the sympathy vote from drug users and dealers.And he's honest -- Yep, "Honest Obe" they call him.So, what's not to like?
16 Comments:
I think you really have something here. The main problem with the Presidents of the past, is they tried to do stuff,way too much stuff. Here we have a MAN(see even I noticed )who has done nothing in the past, and, as far as I can tell, plans on doing nothing in the future. So maybe this is the answer. A Do-Nothing President. No blame ,no shame. Sort of like the three monkeys all done up in one.
Hear nothing,See nothing, Say nothing.
Unfortunatly for Obama and free speech, your new censorship regime, er, 'rules', forbid me to rubutt this litany of misinformation, lies, supposition, racism, sexisism, hypocrisy, assumption and disingenuous slander as we are not allowed to answer every sentence, even though you put down sentence after sentence of sheer nonsense. My fear is that, without any voice to the contrary, some of your more gullible readers might even believe you. Thanks for the right of reply. Way to be democratic.
Cheers
He's a man – Yup. Can’t deny this bit. But boy, it makes a change don’ it? And how do you back up the wild assertion that ‘Most male American voters (and not a few female voters) will NEVER vote for a woman if given another choice’? I’m a male and I would base my vote on whoever was the most qualified etc, but maybe I would PREFER a woman. On the other hand, there was Margaret Thatcher. But does this mean I would vote for Hilary? Not necessarily. And gay men and women would vote for Osama because they fancy him? Puh-leese! Did women vote for Bush because they fancied him? No, on second thought don’t answer that….
Cheers
Elroy
Elroy,
As my description of this blog clearly states... "Thoughts and satire about news, politics & religion." Think about it.
(:D) Cheers
P.S.-- I found hilarious that even you confused "Osama" for "Obama"... Hahahaha.
Hankmeister,
Spot-on... and your right, Elroy could use a good comedy club.
(:D) Regards...
I think he's kinda funny-looking, but hey, what do I know?
Dang! You mean your list wasn't serious? I was convinced to vote for him on the cookie bullet alone! Rats.
I used to think Hillary was the antiChrist, but now I know it is Obama!
Did you hear little Johnnie Edwards telling us how Jesus would be disappointed with America?
Two thoughts:
(1) Wasn't Jesus disappointed with lawyers in the scriptures, and
(2) Jesus being the same today, yesterday, and forever, I take that to mean he is disappointed with little Johnnie, because guess what little Johnnie-----Jesus is ALIVE, yet you speak of Him in the past tense!
hankmeister, Is there some sort of conspiracy that prevents great noble conservative voices like yourself from peddling their voices in "wacadamia"? Academia is not some sort of entity where there is to be "fair and balance" for all views, at the expense of truth. Neo-conservatism, fails in academia because it cannot stand its ground through the test of academic integrity.
Just take for example, some of your neo-con idles like Ann Coulter. She does awfully well peddling her tough-talk in dumbed down media circles, but is careful not to encounter any notable academics like say Noam chomsky. She is smart enough to realise that her tough-talk doesn't stand a chance in academic circles.
Harry Daschle,
Hey! Thanks for stopping by. Good comments. I enjoy reading your comments over at ScrappleFace too.
(:D) Best regards...
Camo,
Yeah, I don't see what all the fuss is about.
Marge,
Mmmmmm... cookies! --Hawkeye Simpson
Purplehaze/Elroy,
Neo-conservatism fails in academia because "academia" (BWAHAHAHA!) has been hijacked by LLL's who use deplorable and transparent tactics to stifle the "freedom of expression" through the imposition of ridiculous policies such as speech codes, etc. In other words, they choose to label anything other than liberal dogma as "hate speech" or "politically incorrect"... Pure rubbish!
Purplehaze/Elroy,
The word is "idols"... not "idles". Sheesh!
Hawkeye/Beerme
Better that these supposed ‘tactics’ are transparent than opaque, no? And if so-called tactics are transparent then the intellectual might of the Right should be able to crush them with a single blow, yes?
But aw! Those poor, subjugated, put-upon, oppressed neo-conservatives, you know, the ones that rule the world – doomed to suffer eternally at the hands of the elites! For shame, intelligentsia, for shame!
I’ve never heard such self-serving (there’s rule # 2 down the gurgler), self-pitying twaddle in all my days. Conservatives hate ‘political correctness’ because it deprives them of their chief weapon – abuse, preferably personal. That’s all that PC is, a tool to level the playing field so discourse can take place without language that may be considered insulting. It is not intended to stifle ‘freedom of expression’ and clobber the Right.
However, I can understand why conservatives take PC so personally. They think ‘freedom of expression’ is the right to call people a ‘faggot’ whenever the fancy takes them, forgetting the lather they work themselves up into when the left are equally indiscreet in their choice of words, and that they have no recourse against it.
Neo-cons have worked they way into every level of government, school board, church committee and the like. This is their mission. If they could storm the ivory towers of academia and take control of the college curriculum they would; that they can’t is more a testimony to their inability to mount a cogent and coherent defense of their philosophy without collapsing into a fit of partisan Turret’s syndrome than any evil and conniving plot of the left. Why, you’re sounding like some sort of wacky conspiracy theorists!
So Ann Coulter can keep foaming at the mouth on Republican cable TV ‘news’ shows whining about how hard done by she is, and sensible, reasoned debate will continue in the halls of learning. The two will never meet because, as Mr. Haze points out, when faced with some strenuous and reality-based opposition, Ms Coulter would melt like the wicked witch of the west.
Don’t whine. Take some responsibility. If your ideology is rigorous enough to sustain some vigorous discussion without either side stooping to ad hominem attacks, why don’t they try it? Seriously.
Cheers
Elroy
PS Still looking forward to your ‘satire’ on religion.
Elroy,
Regarding Hawkeye vs. Beerme, see my comment HERE.
Neo-cons "rule the world"? What planet do you live on, my friend? Perhaps they rule the world in Elwood, Victoria, Australia... but not here in the US. Conservatives in the US have very few outlets to express their opinion... perhaps FoxNews, talk-radio, the National Review, the NY Post, the Washington Times, the Weekly Standard, and a few blogs like mine "crying in the wilderness"?
By comparison, liberals have the New York Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times, National Public Radio, Public Television, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, the enviro-channels (like Animal Planet, National Geographic, & Discovery Channel), the Associated Press, Reuters, and hundreds (if not thousands) of newspapers across the country. The BBC in Britain is liberal. Most of the European publications are liberal and anti-American. If anyone "rules the world", it's liberals.
The liberals control "wacademia" as you call it. They also control the vast majority of the American judicial branch. And at the moment they also control both houses of Congress.
If you still think the neo-cons "rule the world", you are simply deluded by your own misconceptions of reality.
Your statement that "Ms Coulter would melt like the wicked witch of the west", is purely hypothetical (and simply delusional). I suspect that it is more of a "dream" that you wish for, than a reality you might ever live to see. I would place a bet on Ann Coulter to triumph at any time over any of your Left-wing, Looney, Liberals (LLL's) in a match of wits.
Cheers
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home