Posted on 09/22/2008 11:47:09 AM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
Last week really ought to have been the end of the McCain campaign. With the whole country feeling (and its financial class acting) as if we lived in a sweltering, bankrupt banana republic, and with this misery added to the generally Belarusian atmosphere that surrounds any American trying to board a train, catch a plane, fill a prescription, or get a public servant or private practitioner on the phone, it was surely the moment for the supposedly reform candidate to assume a commanding position. And the Republican nominee virtually volunteered to assist that outcome by making an idiot of himself several times over, moving from bovine and Panglossian serenity about the state of the many, many crippled markets to sudden bursts of pointless hyperactivity such as the irrelevant demand to sack the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
And yet, and unless I am about to miss some delayed "groundswell" or mood shift, none of this has translated into any measurable advantage for the Democrat. There are three possible reasons for such a huge failure on Barack Obama's part. The first, and the most widely canvassed, is that he is too nice, too innocent, too honest, and too decent to get down in the arena and trade bloody thrusts with the right-wing enemy. (This is rapidly becoming the story line that will achieve mythic status, along with allegations of racial and religious rumor-mongering, if he actually loses in November.) The second is that crisis and difficulty, at home and abroad, sometimes make electors slightly more likely to trust the existing establishment, or some version of it, than any challenger or newcomer, however slight. The third is that Obama does not, and perhaps even cannot, represent "change" for the very simple reason that the Democrats are a status quo party.
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
Hitch forgot ''peevish'', ''narcissistic'', ''henpecked'', ''thin-skinned'', ''arrogant'', ''inarticulate'' (ex-teleprompter), ''bombastic'', ''fascistic'', and Gork's favourite adjective, ''snippy''.
And my preferred adjective for him, ''coprolitic''.
Heh. Even Slate can get it, Obama is a marxist.....with ties to every thug in the country. The only card left is the racist card, which isn't going to work this time.
Wow!
That is some pretty heavy cannon fire from Hitchens on the Obama campaign.
That is a pretty good read— well worth the time.
Excellent.
I looked it up for everyone:
coprolitic
–noun
a stony mass consisting of fossilized fecal matter of animals.
Though I disagree with his ultimate conclusion/suggestion since Sarah would wipe the floor with Hillary in 2012, I just wish I could write like Hitchins. “A dusky Dukakis...” hilarious.
Correction:
“coprolite” is the noun.
FROM what FREAKIN rock did this CLYMER crawled out from?
Actually, I'd consider Hitchens to be coprophagic.
Is it just me or is he becoming increasingly pedantic in his style?
Thanks,I’m impressed you knew the meaning of Panglossian.
What is interesting is that you can make comparisons between Bush-41 and McCain, and Dukakis, and THE ONE, but This time the GOP has a stronger running mate, and the Demmunists have a weaker one than in 1988...
Yes, something has changed in his writing style, not sure what. Almost as if he's having assistants write some of his text.
Obama has spent his adult life reaching for just one thing, to be president. And in that search, everything he has done has been a calculation to get there. He began by joining Rev Wright’s church (THE church to be in if you want to play politics in Chicago’s South Side), then he went to William Ayers for his blessing to run for state office and played by the dirty Chicago politics rules in order toget in, once in, he voted “present” more than any legislator in history in order to avoid controversy.
Now, after 20 years spent avoiding controversy and reading words written by others, we find that he is unable to put together simple explanations to simple questions because he constantly wants to play both sides with his answer and in the process, gives no answer at all.
NoBama is a wuss and a not very pretty one.
Just like my dog!
Why is Obama so vapid, hesitant, and gutless?
Because he’s someone else’s puppet?
“He was running in Iowa and New Hampshire to seed the ground for 2012, not 2008, and then the enthusiasm of his supporters (and the weird coincidence of a strong John Edwards showing in Iowa) put him at the front of the pack. Yet, having suddenly got the leadership position, he hadn’t the faintest idea what to do with it or what to do about it.”
That has been my feeling all along, he didn’t anticipate this and you can sense some uncertainty and lack of confidence in him.
He is not coprolitic, he is fresh and new and mushy and smelly and sickeningly disgusting and difficult to get rid of.
Actually, I take the view that Osamabama has been so full of shjt for so long that it has now fossilised, and he is therefore coprolitic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.