Friday, April 27, 2007
Brief Impressions from the Clown Show in South Carolina
- What a bunch of losers. We Republicans can lament our own field of candidates (as it stands now, without Fred Thompson in the field) all that we want, but rest assured that the other side is just as poor.
- Although it is being pushed aside in early print news reports, Clinton's bold-faced lie regarding her Iraq War vote was truly shameful. It really reeked of Kerry's "voted for it before I voted against it" gaffe. Except, of course, that Hillary's line goes more like "What Iraq War resolution? I didn't vote for any Iraq War resolution. You must have me mistaken for someone else. I do remember voting for something, but it definitely wasn't an Iraq War resolution." Is that the best her crack staff of liberal elitist spin doctors can do?
- Obama said nothing, which is perfect for him. So far, he's managed to have a mildly successful political career without doing a daggone thing. That's exactly what the Democrats need - a stealth candidate - and it's their best chance to win. It's a great lesson for our children, too - Do nothing, Say nothing, and you'll go far. Nice.
- Richardson showed what a racist Democrat looks like. He actually said that he didn't call for Alberto Gonzalez's resignation because he was a fellow Hispanic. Nice to see that competency doesn't matter as much as race, Bill. Even worse than your answer there were the explanations you were offering to MSNBC afterwards.
- If I had to pick winners, I would go with Biden first and Edwards second. Biden's charisma will serve him well in the debates until he is finally pushed out of the primary season by lack of money. Edwards did OK, except that his world famous haircut was again front and center as a topic of conversation. Certain items - like Al Gore's Internet - strike a nerve with America and never seem to disappear. Don't be surprised if Edwards' campaign-funded $400 haircut doesn't become his calling card - and a reason that Middle America refuses to vote for him.
Enough talk about Democrats. I don't want to start the weekend on a bad note.
UPDATE: Sharon Cobb (not surprisingly) has a different take on last night than I did. She thinks Clinton did well. I do agree that Hillary acted presidential - and just like her ex-President husband lied like only lying liars can.
Since Sharon ranked her participants, I will do so in kind:
1) Joe Biden
2) John Edwards
3) Barack Obama
4) Chris Dodd
5) Hillary Clinton
6) Bill Richardson
7) Dennis Kucinich
8) Mike Gravel
It should be noted that the only reason that Richardson is not last is due to Kucinich and Gravel being included in the debates, and I believe that it is international law that those two loons have to be last in everything they do. Richardson certainly deserved to be last, but I would hate to violate any instruments of international law...
UPDATE II - Maybe I got it wrong. Wizbang - certainly no friend of Sharon and her liberal buds - gave Hillary the win, too, because she didn't make any mistakes. Wizbang's probably right in that respect, but I was going on this debate only, not the big picture. Maybe we're talking apples and oranges here. Gotta love this zinger, though:
"Gravel is establishing himself as the Al Sharpton of this cycle. He funny, absurd, and doesn't care what anyone thinks. Of course, he's also an idiot, so expect the Democrats to include him in most of the debates."
LiberalPro was agitated by Hillary's Iraq lie, which shows that even some liberals just want her to tell the truth on the subject and move on.
Funny thing - a lot of the liberal bloggers are disappointed in Obama's performance because he said nothing. Well, that's Obama, folks. He's done nothing, and he's not going to do anything in the rest of this campaign, either. If Hillary screws up (and there's probably a 50% chance of that happening), then Barack is their nominee by default. The only way he wins is by treading water and being the rock star candidate of the Democratic field.
Of course, I'm citing LiberalPro here and he liked Mike Gravel's performance. Heck, he even thought that Gravel was sane. Geesh...
A study funded by the US Government's National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health has concluded that conservatism can be explained psychologically as: a set of neuroses rooted in "fear and aggression, dogmatism and the intolerance of ambiguity".
President George Bush, turns out to be a textbook case. The telltale signs are his preference for moral certainty and frequently expressed dislike of nuance.
"This intolerance of ambiguity can lead people to cling to the familiar, to arrive at premature conclusions, and to impose simplistic cliches and stereotypes," said the authors of the Psychological Bulletin.
One of the psychologists behind the study, Jack Glaser, said the aversion to shades of grey and the need for "closure" could explain the fact that the Bush administration ignored intelligence that contradicted its beliefs about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.