☰ Menu
All Da King's Men

Cat Fight In S.C.

By Da King Published: January 22, 2008


I have to admit, when liberals fight amongst themselves, it cracks me up. The Hillary/Obama row during last night's South Carolina debate was no exception. Mostly, I get a kick out what passes for an insult among liberals. For example, Obama said he was helping unemployed people in Chicago when "you [Hillary] were a corporate lawyer sitting on the board at Wal-Mart". Only in liberal la-la-land would being a lawyer for a highly successful corporation like Wal-Mart be reason for an insult. Us folk out here in the real world would call that "a really good job". For most of us, if we landed a job like that, our parents would be calling all the relatives and telling them how well we were doing. Not in la-la-land. In la-la-land, working for a corporation is B-A-D, because corporations are E-V-I-L. Never mind that corporations give millions and millions of americans a J-O-B. In la-la-land, being a lawyer isn't really bad as long as you are a civil rights lawyer or a lawyer that sues doctors or businesses, like John Edwards was, but corporate lawyers are scum. It's in the la-la rule book.

Shortly after Obama's insult, Hillary returned fire, saying that she was fighting against misguided Republican policies "when you [Obama] were practicing law and representing your contributor ... in his slum landlord business in inner city Chicago". That's proof of what I was saying about la-la attitudes towards lawyers. Hillary was saying Obama was the WRONG kind of lawyer, because one of his clients was a landlord (a corporation). Apparently, la-la's don't think corporations are entitled to legal respresentation. It's part of their respect for the Constitution, I guess.

I have an aside here about that "35 years of experience" that Hillary always claims to have. Wasn't she a student at Yale Law School 35 years ago ? I'm thinking that doesn't count. If I knew we were allowed to claim time being a student as politicial experience, then I have 16 years experience myself. Da King in 2012 !

Obama also claimed Bubba was telling lies about him on the campaign trail, and when Hillary objected to that because Bubba wasn't there to defend himself (as if that matters. Obama isn't there when Bubba slams him either), Obama replied, ""Well, I can't tell who I'm running against sometime". Barack, you are running against the Clinton corporation. There's no difference between them, so that doesn't matter either. This is Team Clinton 2.0.

John Edwards tried to get his two cents in between the battling frontrunners. "Are there three people in this debate, not two?" he asked. Actually, John, there are only two. You are over. Drop out, and try to buddy up to someone for the VP slot.

Edwards continued, "We have got to understand, this is not about us personally. It is about what we are trying to do for [to] this country". The audience applauded this, even though it's inaccurate. There is no difference between Hillary and Obama as far as how they would run the country. They are cookie-cutter big government liberals. They have the same policies on virtually everything. There is no independent thought allowed in the Democratic party. If you vary the least little bit, you are out. That's why the three remaining candidates are all the same. As I said before, the differences are about style, not substance. It IS about them personally. Women are voting for Hillary. Blacks and independents are voting for Obama. Bitter mill workers are voting for Edwards. The rest of the Democratic vote is split between Obama and Hillary. Whoever insults whom the most effectively from here on out will get the Democratic nomination.

One area in which Hillary should have scored big time was when she highlighted Obama's nearly invisible voting record, but the audience actually booed her for making a valid point. Remember, this is la-la land. Logic does not apply. Hillary said "Senator Obama, it is very difficult to have a straight-up debate with you because you never take responsibility for any vote". Edwards teamed up with Hillary on this one, criticizing Obama by saying,
"Why would you over 100 times vote present?...What if I had just not shown up to vote on things that really mattered to this country? It would have been safe for me politically. It would have been the careful and cautious thing to do, but I have a responsibility to take a position even when it has political consequences for me." Mr. Edwards, I think you released a cat bag full of truth with that statement. However, Hillary's senate record isn't particularly distinguished either (but at least she commits), and Hillary has never taken responsibility for her Iraq war vote. She lies her butt off about that every time. The real truth is, both of those two had an eye on the presidency from the minute they set foot in the Senate. The Senate is just a means to an end.

In reply to the dual attack from Hillary and Edwards, Obama made up an answer that sounded good, but just isn't true. "Don't question, John, the fact that on issue after issue that is important to the American people, I haven't simply followed, I have led", Obama said. Really, Barack ? Name ONE issue on which you have led. I can't think of one. Name one piece of significant legislation where you have led the way. I can't think of one of those either. However, that false statement by Obama does make THIS one true: "I have been troubled ... the degree to which my record is not accurately portrayed."

I'll say.



About This Blog

Prev Next